Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Tax Credits (Staffordshire, Moorlands)

Charlotte Atkins: What assessment he has made of the impact of tax credits in Staffordshire, Moorlands in each year since they were introduced.

Des Browne: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain to the House the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer from today's questions. He is in Israel and the west bank, meeting the Israeli and Palestinian Finance Ministers, the Israeli Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. To help expedite the peace process and to foster enterprise in the west bank and Gaza, he is announcing a small loan facility worth a potential $400 million, building over a number of years, which will help to create thousands of jobs and small businesses.
	In 2003–04, an average of 7,500 families in Staffordshire, Moorlands benefited from tax credits. Tax credits reach far more families on low or moderate incomes than any previous system of income-related financial support.

Charlotte Atkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Clearly, tax credits have brought huge benefits to my constituents, but is he aware that problems of overpayments persist? In my experience, they are caused largely by the faulty transcription of details over the telephone. How does he intend to address those ongoing problems?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is correct. Tax credits have lifted more than 500,000 children out of poverty since 1998–99, but I accept that computer and administrative problems in the past have resulted in a number of incorrect overpayments. We are aware of those problems, and have apologised for them repeatedly. On several occasions, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has set out what we are doing to improve the tax credits system. She told the Treasury Select Committee on 26 October that, subject to testing, where a claimant disputes the recovery of an overpayment, action would be taken to prevent automatic recovery until the case had been looked at. Final testing has been completed successfully, and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has now implemented the procedure.

Richard Ottaway: Whatever the merits of tax credits, overpayments are causing serious problems. Will the Chief Secretary clarify what he has just said? Will all overpayments resulting from bureaucratic cock-ups be written off?

Des Browne: I will not say precisely what the hon. Gentleman invites me to, but he asked me to clarify the matter and I shall do so. We have made it clear that our objective was to ensure that, when a claimant disputed an overpayment, action would be taken to prevent automatic recovery until the case had been examined. We have been able to achieve that, and either I or my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General may have an opportunity to provide details later. However, the present procedure is manual, and we are working to introduce a fully automated system in due course.

David Laws: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that people in Staffordshire, Moorlands will continue to face the problem that the ombudsman called "systemic maladministration"? He has set out today the changes that will be put in place, but overpayments will still be recovered before his Department has assessed whether, under the code of practice, they are recoverable. Is not that the systemic maladministration that the ombudsman described? Will not the problem remain very considerable until the right hon. Gentleman and the Paymaster General deal with it?

Des Browne: I accept that the ombudsman's report on tax credits used that phrase, but it did not say that the tax credits system was in general disarray. The hon. Gentleman constantly makes that suggestion but, given the scale of the undertaking, the system has been broadly successful. He encourages me to write off all overpayments, but I am not prepared to do so. Of course, some will be written off, or people will be unable to pay the money back, but HMRC's duty is to seek recovery where that is possible. However, we have made the position perfectly clear as regards errors made by HMRC.

John McFall: I welcome the Chief Secretary's comments on the disputed overpayments. He knows that the Treasury Select Committee is looking into the administration of tax compliance. On behalf of my colleagues on the Committee I welcome the progress that has been made, but we will keep our eye on the system so that it becomes more efficient over the months and years. I am aware that on 30 September the renewal process was completed. What assessment has the Department made of that, and can my right hon. Friend make a statement?

Des Browne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support and I am sure that the Treasury Select Committee will continue to review these matters, as it should, and I welcome that. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the renewal process commenced some time ago, but it is still early days in this year's renewal process to give a full review of how well it is going. Early indications are, however, that some people fail to renew and termination notices have been sent out to those who have not renewed. If those people come back to us with good reason why they are unable to respond, their payments will be reinstated. Last year that happened with about half of the people. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are continuing to make efforts to remind people. Hon. Members will be aware of the high profile publicity campaign to raise awareness of the deadline. In addition, we have made significant numbers of outward bound calls to claimants to remind them of the need to renew.

George Osborne: I fully understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be here and I wish him well on his trip to understand more about the middle east. I hope for reasons of prudence that he got a cheap-day return.
	Turning to the tax credits fiasco, the Chief Secretary will be aware that the parliamentary ombudsman said recently to a Select Committee of this House that she is "hugely concerned" that the Government are simply "picking and choosing" from her devastating report and that the Government are
	"reluctant to accept her recommendations."
	Is she right or wrong?

Des Browne: I have already referred to a quotation from the ombudsman's report and I will repeat it for the hon. Gentleman. The report
	"does not suggest that the new tax credit system is in general disarray."
	On the contrary, it recognises that, given the scale of the undertaking, its introduction has been broadly successful. We have responded in detail to the ombudsman's recommendations. The hon. Gentleman is correct that not all of them have been accepted. The fundamental point is that this process is bringing significant numbers of children in particular out of poverty. The question for him is: where does he stand? Is his position still the same—that he does not think that the tax credit system has helped to reduce child poverty?

George Osborne: The Chief Secretary seems completely unaware of the real situation. Thousands of families are being driven below the poverty line by the administration of tax credits. The citizens advice bureau, which has to pick up the pieces from this mess, told me this morning that it is not uncommon for it to apply to charities for food vouchers to help desperate families who are not getting the tax credit payments that they expected. The Chief Secretary has told us that things are getting better, but the National Audit Office tells us that they are not. Is it not time that he joined a growing consensus that believes that we should consider moving to a system where payments are more certain and less prone to error, or has he decided to join the Prime Minister in his bunker?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman's assertion about the tax credit system and its effect on poverty is simply not true.

George Osborne: I am adopting someone else's quote.

Des Browne: The very fact that the hon. Gentleman adopts someone else's quote does not make it true. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) asked me a favour to speak on Question 1 and now he is shouting from a sedentary position across the Chamber. We cannot have that.

Des Browne: The tax credit system has served to take a significant number of children out of poverty and 6 million families throughout the country are taking advantage of it. It was set up in a detailed design in consultation on child and working tax credits published alongside the 2002 Budget. At the time the Government recognised that we would need to monitor the operation of the system and learn lessons in the light of experience. That is exactly what we have been doing. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has periodically reported to the House on that, and that process will continue.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman desires simplicity. Indeed, we know of his desire to simplify the tax system to a flat tax. He will know that, just like the flat tax, simplification always introduces significant inequities. A flat tax would cost £50 billion of public spending, and I am sure that the simplification that he suggests would drive a significant number of people into poverty, as, indeed, did the previous system of support in work.

George Mudie: In every other aspect of HMRC work there is a right of appeal to an adjudicator, but not for tax credits. Will the Minister assure the House that in the review of the code he will give that right of appeal genuine consideration?

Des Browne: I can answer that question simply: yes, of course we will. It was one of the ombudsman's recommendations and we are actively considering it.

EU Budget (UK Rebate)

Philip Davies: What recent discussions he has had with other European Union member states regarding the future of the UK rebate within the EU budget.

John Healey: The UK presidency has been consulting all member states about the next EU budget. We are committed to working for a deal at the December European Council. Our position on the abatement remains as set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 20 June.

Philip Davies: I thank the Minister for that reply.
	According to The Times, this summer the Chancellor threatened to veto the entire EU budget if our partners attempted to end the UK rebate. Why has the Treasury retreated from that position, such that last week the Economic Secretary told the European Scrutiny Committee that if our European partners made concessions
	"everything would be on the table for negotiation"?—[Official Report, European Standing Committee C, 1 November 2005; c. 9.]

John Healey: Our position has been consistent throughout. Our aim is an affordable budget that meets Europe's aims and the challenges it must face in the future. The June plan, on which the Chancellor was commenting, means that even at the end of 2013 Europe would still be spending 40 per cent. of its budget on agriculture, when the challenges for the future lie in innovation, science, research and development, training and education to try to meet competitiveness in the world economy. The difference between the hon. Gentleman's party and mine is that we want to reach a deal in December, as I said, and we are currently working hard to secure that, while he and many others in his party do not want a deal and really want withdrawal from Europe. As he told a fringe meeting at the Tory party conference, the only party—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Minister give us an indication of the potential threat to the European regional fund?

John Healey: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about regional funding and policy. It will obviously be an important part of the new financial perspective, but it waits on overall agreement of the budget. He will be aware that we have made proposals for changes not only in the overall budget, but in the structural funds and regional policies to which he referred. He will be aware that three quarters of the funding for UK regions and nations is from domestic Government rather than from Europe. The guarantee that we have given—that if our proposals are adopted, there will be no fall-off in the funding for UK regions and nations, because we put such a premium on regional policy—is one that he and many of my hon. Friends will welcome.

Christopher Huhne: I should be grateful for a little clarification from the Minister, as I for one am still confused about exactly what the Government's position is on the UK rebate. Does the Minister intend to agree with the Prime Minister on 8 June, when he clearly said:
	"The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away"?—[Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1234.]
	Or does he agree with the Prime Minister on 21 June, when he said, following talks with the Swedish Prime Minister:
	"We have made it clear . . . that we are prepared not just to discuss and negotiate . . . but to recognise that the rebate is an anomaly that has to go, but it has to go in the context of the other anomaly being changed away"?
	What is the Government's position on the rebate, and can the Minister assure the House that they will defend the rebate, which is a necessary part of dealing with the anomaly?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman perhaps has more experience of how the real business in Europe is done, given his experience before his election to the House. The position is as the Prime Minister set out to the House on 20 June, when he said:
	"I made it clear that we should deal with both anomalies: the rebate and the CAP. I proposed that we have a fundamental review . . . to alter fundamentally the structure of the budget, dealing both with the rebate and the CAP."—[Official Report, 20 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 524.]
	It should be clear to the hon. Gentleman, because he knows the system, that the review is an important step towards the reform that is needed to correct those imbalances, which mean that the abatement is currently fully justified.

Gisela Stuart: As there are two rebates—one is the UK rebate and the other is the French rebate, known as the common agricultural policy—can my hon. Friend assure the House he will not make any concessions on the one without having firm concessions on the other, not the mere promise of them?

John Healey: Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows extremely well, given her experience in Europe, the rationale for the British rebate is the imbalances and distortions in the European budget, principally around the common agricultural policy. Those imbalances mean that Britain has paid almost twice as much as France into the European budget since 1984, and that we are paying seven times more on agriculture than on the other parts of the European budget that will help Britain and other European countries to adjust for the future. That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been leading negotiations to try to secure a review as part of an overall budget settlement. They remain committed to that and are working hard to do the deal that will allow the budget to be approved at the December Council.

Mark Francois: We welcome the Damascene conversion on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is an open secret that, in the fag end of the EU presidency, the Government are now offering up the UK rebate to try to clinch a deal on the budget for 2007–13. How do Ministers square their eagerness to negotiate away our rebate with the Prime Minister's categorical pledge to the House on 8 June? He said:
	"The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period."—[Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1234.]
	What kind of Prime Minister changes his mind so fundamentally on such an issue in just three weeks?

John Healey: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman fully appreciates the UK's position as President of the European Union at the moment. It is our responsibility, as well as our aim, to introduce proposals that can be accepted by all. That means the right deal for the UK, but it also means the right deal for Europe. The Foreign Secretary is working hard to try to secure and put in place the preparations for that agreement in December, but it must deal with the main imbalance of the common agricultural policy alongside any question of the UK rebate.

Tax Credits

Barbara Follett: What steps he is taking to promote a better understanding of the tax credit system.

Dawn Primarolo: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is taking steps to remind taxpayers of the importance of providing up-to-date information as their circumstances change. That includes a publicity campaign, which will run from the new year, to remind claimants of their obligations. The Department is also piloting targeted approaches, again, to help to reinforce the message and remind taxpayers of their obligations. HMRC is also discussing with the citizens advice bureau how best to work together with a view to developing arrangements for working to support claimants better, including face-to-face support for the most vulnerable groups.

Barbara Follett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response, which addresses the main problem that I have been having in Stevenage, where more than 7,500 families have benefited from tax credits, but about 150 have had serious problems with overpayments. As she says, the main cause is failure to report changes in circumstances. Will she consider producing some kind of educational leaflet—in simple, clear language—to explain this rather complex system?

Dawn Primarolo: I deeply regret the fact that some of my hon. Friend's constituents have experienced extreme difficulties with their claims. The House has discussed the matter on several occasions. I would not want to give the impression that this is just a question of ensuring that claimants notify HMRC because there are clear issues that the Department must address regarding the recording of information. Further steps can be taken to ensure that information is clearly given to claimants so that they are able to check that easily. That, in addition to the campaign that I have already described, the redesigned shorter and clearer award notice and the notes that will accompany that notice—I hope that they will be short and specific; perhaps two pages—will make it clear which details on the award notice need to be checked, with the notification given if they are incorrect.

Michael Fallon: If Ministers do not think that a system that was four years in preparation, that costs £475 million a year to administer and that ends up in its third year of operation wrongly paying 1.9 million families represents disarray, perhaps they will offer us a better definition of disarray. Instead of trying to rubbish the parliamentary ombudsman, why do not Ministers get a grip of this shambles and start sorting it out now?

Dawn Primarolo: I deeply regret the hon. Gentleman's assertion that Ministers are somehow attempting to rubbish the parliamentary ombudsman—nothing could be further from the truth. Her recommendations are being actively considered by the Department. The Department is working closely with the ombudsman, the adjudicator and the citizens advice bureau to deal with specific problems that have occurred due to errors in the Department and computer problems.
	The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to assert that the tax credit system is somehow failing the communities that it serves. It serves 6.1 million families, the majority of whom receive their tax credit. It is assisting the delivery of the Government's strategy of helping people into work, supporting them in work, helping to eradicate child poverty and, most importantly, supporting parents in balancing their work and family responsibilities. That is not a failure, but a policy going forward, albeit with issues that need to be addressed.

Meg Hillier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that tax credits are extremely popular with many working families in Hackney, South and Shoreditch and that there have been few problems? The systemic problem with tax credits arises when people's income increases very quickly in a single year, and, sadly, too few families in Hackney, South and Shoreditch experience such an increase. What can she do to help Hackney families to experience further increases in income?

Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend will know, if the family income of people in the tax credit system rises by more than £2,500 in a year, they are supposed to notify the Department because that might have an impact on their tax credits. However, she should look at the employment rates and the number of people moving into work who are lone parents, especially, and partners in marriages. The presence of tax credits is supporting such people, and they are helping people to move into work, which must be a good thing.

Nigel Dodds: In terms of a better understanding of the tax credit system, will the Paymaster General clarify what the Chief Secretary said earlier regarding no automatic recovery of overpayments? Does that mean that there will still be recovery of overpayments before the resolution of disputes?

Dawn Primarolo: If claimants dispute the overpayment of tax credits about which they have been notified, the Department now suspends recovery of the disputed overpayment until the matter is resolved. The Department investigates and responds to the dispute. If   the case is found in a claimant's favour, the overpayment is written off. If it is demonstrated that repayment is still required, overpayment recovery commences. The system works on a manual basis at present and will move to an automated basis next year.

Self-invested Personal Pensions

Danny Alexander: What assessment his Department has made of the likely impact of the new self-invested personal pension regulations on the demand for second homes in rural areas.

Ivan Lewis: There has been widespread speculation about the impact of the new rules that will allow self-invested personal pensions to invest in residential properties. Government guidance sets out the implications of putting a residential property into a SIPP. It is unlikely to be an appropriate investment for most people, but the Government are committed to keeping this area under review and will not hesitate to act if there is evidence of any abuse.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Has he seen this morning's Financial Times, suggesting that Standard Life alone has so far sold £1.1 billion-worth of investment in those products? Is he aware that Scotland's second homes are concentrated in rural communities in the highlands and islands, for example, and that there is a real fear in those communities that even a small rise in demand for second homes, stimulated by the new rules, will push house prices even further beyond the means of local people? Why is the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is fine. I believe that the Minister will be able to answer the question.

Ivan Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, as ever, for your assistance.
	We need to consider the issue in the context of pension tax simplification, which has been welcomed by almost everyone—the industry, financial services and all Opposition parties. It is also true to say that the rules do not put the investments into any tax privileged category over and above any other investments in a pension. There are already around 15 million pension savers who can invest in residential properties. At the moment, there are only around 200,000 savers in SIPPs. Having said that, if we find that the hon. Gentleman's concerns prove to be justified, we remain willing to act and to act appropriately. At this stage, however, we believe that pension tax simplification is the right thing to do and, in that context, SIPPs are relevant. However, if there are unintended consequences, we are willing to consider those and to act appropriately.

Andrew Love: Concern has been expressed, especially in the media, about the possibilities of mis-selling, and the Minister commented on that. There has also been concern about whether there will be an adequate regulatory regime. Is he aware of those concerns? What action is he likely to take to ensure the protection of the public?

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend raises a legitimate issue. At the moment, there is a 12-month gap between the regulatory regime that the Financial Services Authority will be able to introduce and the changes from 1 April next year in terms of pension tax simplifications and, specifically, the impact on SIPPs. Clearly, the Treasury and the FSA are concerned about that gap, and we are considering whether we can do anything practical about it. Having said that, it is important that the FSA follows its usual consultation processes before rushing in inappropriate rules. We are conscious of the 12-month gap.

Patrick McLoughlin: May I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), on coming into the Chamber for this question? It is obvious that DEFRA takes the matter seriously. Is the Minister telling us that the Government have done no work on the possible implications of the measure for the countryside? Is he saying that he does not believe that it will have an impact on the price of rural housing?

Ivan Lewis: I am saying that there have been a lot of accusations in the press and elsewhere about the potential of SIPPs that are not supported by the evidence. Having said that, we have been working on the potential consequences of the changes, including the potential impact on rural communities and on housing, which is why if we feel, having considered the evidence, that there are undesirable consequences, we will take the necessary steps.

Paddy Tipping: What discussion has the Minister and his officials had with the Affordable Rural Housing Commission? It, too, has raised concerns.

Ivan Lewis: I personally have not had discussions with that organisation, but I am willing, as part of the deliberations that we are having, to ensure that that organisation and similar organisations are consulted properly and that we take account of their views.

Adam Price: In drawing up the proposals originally, it is unlikely that the Government intended to help fund second homes at the expense of other taxpayers or the Exchequer. As part of the Minister's willingness to act, does he reserve the right to exclude second homes from the proposals?

Ivan Lewis: As I have said, we are aware of the concerns expressed. We are also aware of the benefits of pension tax simplification, which has been welcomed continually by anyone who has considered the issues. It is not generally known that around 15 million pension savers can already invest in residential property. That has nothing to do with the changes to SIPPs. However, I once again reassure the hon. Gentleman that if we feel that they will have a seriously detrimental impact on our housing policy or on rural communities, we shall certainly consider that and, if appropriate, take the necessary action.

Millennium Development Goals

Jim Dobbin: If he will extend the Government's debt relief programme to all countries that need debt relief to meet the millennium development goals.

Ivan Lewis: At the annual meetings in September we secured agreement from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for 100 per cent. multilateral debt relief for up to 38 of the world's most indebted countries. Britain goes further than this, and we will unilaterally service our share of the debts of other poor countries where the resources freed up will be definitely used for poverty reduction.

Jim Dobbin: Short-term volatility can be damaging for developing countries. On current trends, sub-Saharan Africa will not reach its development millennium goals by 2015. What progress is the international finance facility making that would aid and support developing countries?

Ivan Lewis: First, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on these issues over many years within his constituency and in the wider community. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the IFF. For example, on current rates of progress it is unlikely that some donors would be able to meet their aid commitments without the IFF, and based on donors' legally binding long-term commitments, the IFF would leverage money from international capital markets by issuing bonds. Bond holders would be repaid from future donor payment streams. More than 80 donor, emerging market and developing countries, including France, Italy, Sweden, China, Brazil and South Africa, support the IFF.
	I can assure my hon. Friend that this was very much an initiative of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who wanted to see far more rapid progress in this area than would have been the case. I can assure my hon. Friend also that the IFF is gaining continuing and growing support from the international community. We see it as a crucial part of achieving our objectives on an accelerated basis, which I am sure every Member of this place would want to see.

Mark Field: At the risk of playing into the hands of the Chancellor, even in his absence today, this question time, like so many others, seems to sound more like International Development questions than Treasury questions.
	Might I suggest that an extension of the debt relief programme should depend on two conditions? Does the Economic Secretary agree that the best way to meet millennium development goals is to insist on pathways towards good internal governance and recognition of the role of government in the developing world, in both promoting and protecting private property rights?

Ivan Lewis: First, we make no apologies for dealing with these matters in Treasury questions. The Government have embarked on a moral mission in terms of the international community. It is one of the most tangible examples of a Government making a difference in respect of things that really matter in this world. We make no apologies for saying that "Make Poverty History" is a campaign that the Treasury has played a massive part in supporting. We pay tribute to the church groups and other organisations that have ensured that the issue is at the top of the political and public agenda throughout the international community.
	On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, of course good governance matters. There is little point, as we have seen through history, in pouring aid into situations where the countries concerned are not being managed in an appropriate way, where there is not transparency and where there is corruption. As part of these new international agreements, the Chancellor has made it absolutely clear that good governance, openness and accountability are crucial if we are to be able to achieve the objectives that we are setting out. In that respect, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of good governance.

Economic Growth (Global Competitiveness)

Andrew Selous: What recent assessment he has made of the UK economy's global competitiveness in respect of economic growth.

Des Browne: Since 1997 the Government have delivered 53 consecutive quarters of economic growth, the longest period of unbroken expansion on record. Our performance compares favourably with that of our international competitors. GDP growth in 2004 was higher in the UK than in Germany, Ireland, France, Italy, Japan, Canada and the euro area.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who made a sedentary interjection, is correct: my arithmetic in terms of the number of quarters is incorrect.

Andrew Selous: According to the OECD, the UK has the lowest growth rate of all the major English-speaking economies—America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. The World Economic Forum's competitiveness league shows the UK slipping a further two places to 13th. Does the Minister believe, as the WEF does, that excessive taxation, regulation and bureaucracy as well as inadequate infrastructure are to blame?

Des Browne: I do not want to turn the question into an exchange of quotes from the OECD, but since the hon. Gentleman refers to it, I shall quote from the OECD report, which says of the UK's economic position that
	"this performance is a testament to the strength of the institutional arrangements for setting monetary and fiscal policy as well as to the flexibility of labour and product markets"
	and that
	"macroeconomic performance over the last decade has been a paragon of stability".
	Part of that is that the UK's competitiveness has been standing up well to recent global economic challenges. In the period since 1997, UK gross domestic product growth has been more stable than that of any other G7 country, in contrast to the period between 1979 and 1996, when it was the most volatile in the G7, with the exception of Canada. The UK's overall macro-economic performance remains strong and it compares well with our major competitors.

Keith Vaz: Given our success, are we now able to look again at the tests for joining the euro, and can we reach any conclusions based on that assessment?

Des Browne: The Treasury keeps the tests under review. It is not the view of the Treasury at present that it would be an appropriate time to deploy the tests.

Michael Gove: The Minister will be aware how important clear and simple taxation is in generating economic growth. He will also be aware that his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, regularly blames oil prices for any turbulence in the economy. Can he guarantee that there will be no windfall tax on the oil sector in any forthcoming Budget?

Des Browne: If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were here, he would not rise to the bait of making up his Budget at the Dispatch Box, and as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I will not do so in his absence. I do not think the hon. Gentleman expects me to do that. Despite other people's observations, our public spending plans are fully costed and fully affordable on a basis of reasonable and cautious assumptions. They are independently audited by the National Audit Office. We in Government have always met our fiscal rules and we will continue to meet our fiscal rules. The hon. Gentleman joins the growing band of those on the Opposition Benches who look for simplification. We know what that means, of course. That would not be affordable because it would be flat tax, and would mean a £50 billion hole in our public spending plans and for the public services. That is the simplification that the hon. Gentleman and his friends want.

Edward Balls: The latest figures on the performance of the economy over the past 10 years show that between 1986 and 1997, the economy grew by 2.5 per cent. Between 1997 and 2001, it grew by more than 3 per cent. Productivity growth in the former period was 2.2 per cent. It went up to 2.7 per cent. and has carried on since.—[Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to carry on that record of improvement in growth and competitiveness is to carry on with policies for stability and investment in the economy, and not to see £50 billion diverted away from public services in our economy to an Estonian-style flat tax?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is correct and the figures that he quotes are accurate, although Opposition Members do not seem to want to hear them. It is stability that has given us consistent growth over the period that we have been in office. As I said earlier, the UK's macroeconomic performance remains strong, compared with that of our major competitors. We have the highest employment in all the G7 countries. Unemployment is at 4.7 per cent., its lowest for a generation; on an annual basis, we have been the lowest in the G7 in the past three years. UK inflation since 1997 has been the least volatile of all the 179 countries tracked by the International Monetary Fund. That did not happen by accident; it happened because of stability.

Stephen Dorrell: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a regular contributor on the international lecture circuit, including to the World Economic Forum, about the importance of competitiveness and productivity. The World Economic Forum, a body to which he regularly lectures, recently said that British competitiveness has fallen since 1997 from being fourth in the world to being 13th in the world. Do the Government accept that judgment, or will they demonstrate to the House and to the country why the World Economic Forum is wrong?

Des Browne: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in his description of what the World Economic Forum said. However, the UK is the only G7 economy to avoid any quarters of contraction in output since 2001. It has continually expanded despite slow growth in the G7. Our economy is performing appropriately and positively in the environment and shows greater stability than that of any of our major competitors.

Jim Devine: Unemployment in my constituency is 2.9 per cent.—it was 20 per cent. when the Conservative party was in power. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Government introduced a flat tax in the past—it was called the poll tax, under which nurses paid exactly the same as—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The first part of the supplementary was fine.

Des Browne: Part of our stability has been continued growth in labour markets. More people now work in all constituencies throughout the UK. In total, 2.3 million more people work in the UK now than when the Government came to power. We can contrast that with the Conservative Government's record. That is a measure whereby we can judge whether we should take lessons from Conservative Members about how to run the economy.

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said, the Chancellor blames the halving of Britain's growth on oil price rises. Will the Chief Secretary, in the Chancellor's absence, acknowledge the findings of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which claims that the impact of oil on this year's growth will be negligible? Is not the truth of the matter that the slowdown is home-grown? Does the Chief Secretary think it could have anything to do with the WEF findings that Government spending in Britain is now more wasteful than in Tanzania and that our tax system is less efficient than that of Ethiopia or Ghana?

Des Browne: If the problem is home-grown, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why is the UK economy growing faster than that of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, the euro area, Japan, Australia and New Zealand? That is happening because the problem is not home-grown, but caused by the environment. That is why I said earlier that the economy was behaving appropriately in the current macro-environment, which includes oil prices. They have been continuously high for a quarter of a century, not only recently—

George Osborne: They are not the whole story.

Des Browne: Well, if we had had the sustained oil prices, moderation of the housing market and a euro area growth rate to provide the context for the rise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must try to get down the Order Paper—it is a difficulty that I have.

Andrew Selous: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No points of order are taken during Question Time.

Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent announcement of major funding to the Liverpool school of tropical medicine from the Gates Foundation, the north-west development agency and Europe will enable it to be a bigger player in combating world disease and that that will also have an impact on economic growth in Liverpool and the north-west? Will the Government continue to support investment in science, thus supporting regional growth in the north-west?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is right that investment in science, especially support for research and development in science, is an important component of a modern economy. Of course, the Treasury and the Government will continue to support that. However, we can do that only because of the framework that the Government have created. The Lords Economic Affairs Committee stated:
	"We think that the UK fiscal framework is close to being best practice, with the Government's golden rule a good rule of thumb."
	Basic fiscal rules and stability have given us the opportunity to invest in science.

Employment (Social Cohesion)

Tony Lloyd: What steps he is taking to ensure that employment flexibility does not adversely affect social cohesion.

Des Browne: The Government are committed to advancing flexibility and fairness together, to ensure that everyone in society has the support that they need to achieve their full potential in a modern economy. Steps to ensure that that happens include the introduction of the national minimum wage, reform of the tax and benefit system, delivery of high-quality responsive services such as Jobcentre Plus to enable people rapidly to re-enter the labour market, and investment in education and training.

Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on some of the things that he said earlier about the comparison between the past 10 years and the 10 years before that? During that previous decade, this country experimented with the concept of economic promotion at the expense of social cohesion, and we saw the impact of that on our inner cities in the form of rising crime, unemployment and all the other social ills that this Government inherited. Has not the success of this Government been to marry economic advance with social cohesion through the measures that my right hon. Friend described, including the minimum wage, better working conditions for families, and the kind of regulations that are consistent with economic growth but that also allow society to operate properly as a society?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It is a component of our success, particularly in labour markets, that we have ensured that flexibility and diversity—which are important in labour markets—go hand in hand with fairness. People are entitled to security and support to ensure that they can cope with the effects of economic change. The Government's approach therefore entails an approach to economic reform that advances both of those concepts. It combines flexibility with fairness, and equips people to cope with the change and to tackle the insecurities that surround it. That is the best route to full employment, and we are well en route to achieving that objective. My hon. Friend is correct.

Andrew Turner: The Chief Secretary has just spoken about flexibility and diversity. Can he explain how giving 10,000 work permits to Bangladeshis to work in the hospitality industry helps social cohesion among the 50 per cent. of young Bangladeshis in this country who are unemployed?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman refers to a specific route of migration that has been taken advantage of by those who operate what we call Indian restaurants, but which are predominantly owned and populated by Bangladeshis. Part of the raison d'être for that was that those jobs could not be filled from the indigenous labour market because of a skills shortage. In fact, the people who come in and work in those restaurants make a significant contribution not only to the economy of this country but to the diversity of the community that we live in—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, among others, has enjoyed some of the products of their labour—and, in my view, the ability to do just that in our communities, where we can celebrate our diversity, contributes to cohesion.

Judy Mallaber: There is one element of employment flexibility that adds to cohesion, particularly among families, that my right hon. Friend did not mention: measures to enable people to combine work and home responsibilities, such as those in the Work and Families Bill on parental and maternity leave, and leave for carers. Will his Department take action to promote with employers and businesses the advantages of such measures to them in helping them to retain experienced staff who are not totally stressed out by the daily burden of juggling their lives at work and at home?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It will become more important as time goes on, with the changing demographic of this country, that skilled workers, particularly women, are not lost to employment because of the competing pressures of home life and work. That is why the Government are, after full discussion with all the sectors of industry and business, incrementally and carefully moving forward to deliver the best balance between work and family responsibilities. Of course the Treasury will play a full part in that process.

VAT (Charities)

Sammy Wilson: If he will take steps to exempt charities from VAT.

Dawn Primarolo: Charities benefit from VAT and other tax reliefs worth £2.4 billion a year. This forms part of the Government's total support to the voluntary and community sector of something like £3.3 billion a year. An exemption for all charities would add between £500 million and £1 billion to the cost, and the Government believe that the available resources are better and more effectively deployed through targeted initiatives rather than through a general VAT refund scheme.

Sammy Wilson: In 2004, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution paid £3.2 million in irrecoverable VAT—that is £3 for every £1 raised by volunteers. That would have paid for the running costs of the Larne lifeboat station in my constituency for the next 13 years. What plans has the Paymaster General to implement the Transport Committee's recommendations on search and rescue, published earlier this year, which called for   such organisations to be relieved of the burden of VAT, or if that proved legally difficult, to make an annual grant to offset the VAT payments for the previous year?

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on giving a great deal of support in this area. The whole House would want to echo his comments with regard to the RNLI and the services that it provides for the country. He will also know that since 1997 the Government have undertaken two reviews to consider this issue. There are something like 250,000 charities, and a general exemption for all of those would produce astronomic costs, of the order that I explained to him in my previous answer. The review also demonstrated that it was extremely difficult, and nigh impossible, to reach a fair and principled position, and to decide how some charities might get VAT relief and some might not. He referred to the Select Committee report, to which the Treasury responded, and I have noted his comments. I undertake to consider the matter again, but I hope that he and the House understand the tight and difficult constraints in relation to a complete exemption for all charities and the costs that that would incur.

David Taylor: Successive Governments have done a great deal to help charities with various VAT exemptions, but inconsistencies remain. For those charities that operate admission fees to facilities, exemption is provided as long as the surplus is invested to improve or protect those facilities. Will the Financial Secretary consider the inconsistency that prevents them from using any surpluses for deficit funding of a general nature? It would be immensely helpful to museums, art galleries and other such facilities to have access to that exemption for that, too.

Dawn Primarolo: I know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will of course bear in mind the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has just made. I want to stress to him and the House, however, that having completed two extensive reviews, making exemptions within the tax system that are fair, targeted and properly used is a challenging and difficult task, and can lead to perverse incentives in the system. I shall reflect on his points with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, but I am sure that he appreciates that it is extremely difficult to achieve what he is seeking.

Millennium Development Goals

Stephen McCabe: What discussions he has had with other Governments on financing the millennium development goals.

Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on progress towards the millennium development goals during the UK's presidency of the G7.

Ivan Lewis: The UK is contributing towards meeting the 2015 millennium development goals through our aid programme and by working with the international community. UK aid will reach nearly £6.5 billion a year by 2007–08, and the Chancellor has announced that we will reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. overseas development aid as a proportion of gross national income in 2013.

Stephen McCabe: I know from talking to my constituents in Hall Green how much they value the leadership that this Government and our Chancellor have shown on this issue. But does my hon. Friend accept that it is now the time to focus on the outcomes and the real contribution that each country makes, and to put less store by the warm words and vague promises of those who are dragging their heels?

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the work that he has been doing in his constituency, with Hall Green churches and other organisations, on the "Make Poverty History" campaign.—[Interruption.] It is interesting that the Conservative party scoffs when we talk about the moral mission of making poverty history and the Government's leadership in that respect around the international community. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will be judged on actions, not words, which is why the Chancellor has personally focused on ensuring that both nation states and individual institutions make definite commitments that are transparent and can be judged in terms of our credibility with the people of the world.

Betty Williams: I congratulate the Government on the leadership shown and the excellent progress made thus far. On the basis of that success, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 899, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks)? It calls on the Government to consider introducing a new target date of 2010 instead of 2013.

Ivan Lewis: I must confess that I have not studied the early-day motion, but I shall do so now. As for changing the target, I can give no such assurance today. I will say, however, that while we are absolutely committed to making progress as quickly as possible, it is also important that our target is credible and that we can be judged to have delivered. That is why we intend to stick to our current target.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that by far the most helpful way of reaching the millennium goals in developing countries is through free and fair trade? Will he say exactly what the Prime Minister is doing in the European Union presidency to break down trade barriers facing the developing world?

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the United Kingdom's position and about our role as EU president. We are determined that the trade talks scheduled for December should deliver real and radical change, and should not repeat the historic fudge, compromise and failure that have characterised such talks in the past. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we are leading in that respect, and in particular that we are using our EU presidency to persuade some of the other nation states that we must step up to the mark in terms of our responsibilities to the developing world and in the context of the trade talks.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: As the House will know, this Friday is 11 November, Remembrance Day. The House will be sitting at 11 am, and right hon. and hon. Members, their staff and officials in the House will be attending to their duties at that time.
	I regard it as appropriate that the House should join the nation in observing the two-minute silence at that time, so that we may remember those who gave their lives for their country to help preserve our democratic freedom.
	Instructions will also be issued to heads of Departments so that members of staff who wish to observe the two-minute silence should be enabled to do so.

Business of the House

Chris Grayling: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Geoff Hoon: The business for next week will be as follows.
	Monday 14 November—Remaining stages of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
	Tuesday 15 November—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Consequences of the NHS Financial Deficit", followed by a debate on the oversight of the ministerial code.
	Wednesday 16 November—Remaining stages of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
	Thursday 17 November—A debate on defence in the United Kingdom on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 18 November—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week is as follows.
	Monday 21 November—Second Reading of the Equality Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 22 November—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 23 November—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill.
	Thursday 24 November—Consideration in Committee and Third Reading of the European Union (Accessions) Bill.
	Friday 25 November—The House will not be sitting.
	With permission, I would also like to announce the recess dates for the coming year. The printed version ofthe calendar is now available from the Vote Officeand details can be found on the website www.commonsleader.gov.uk. [Interruption.] I did cross out "my website".
	The House will rise for Christmas on Tuesday 20 December 2005 and return on Monday 9 January 2006. For the spring half term, the House will rise on Thursday 16 February and return on Monday 27 February. The Easter recess will start when the House rises on Thursday 30 March and will end when we return on Tuesday 18 April. We rise at Whitsun on Thursday 25 May, returning on Monday 5 June. Finally, we will rise on Tuesday 25 July for the summer recess and return on Monday 9 October.
	As a consequence of that announcement, it will be necessary to move the private Members' Bill Friday sitting previously announced for 24 February, and I will table the necessary motion later today. As always, all those dates are subject to the satisfactory progress of business.

Chris Grayling: At Treasury questions this morning—I was present, but the Leader of the House did not have the benefit of hearing what Ministers had to say—Ministers left us confused and concerned about reports that the Government are now willing to surrender some or all of the British rebate. Can we have an urgent statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about what he is planning, particularly whether he is planning to do a deal in order to secure a final budget settlement before the end of the UK presidency? Can we have a statement about what would be a major betrayal of Government promises as soon as the Chancellor returns from the middle east?
	No mention was made in Treasury questions about a date for the pre-Budget report. The Leader of the House will remember—I pressed him on it last week—that many Members want to be present to hear that report and may need to amend their diaries. There is no reason why the date could not have been published by now. Is it not the height of discourtesy to the House that it has not yet been published?
	I am glad that the Leader of the House responded to my request for the publication of dates for next year's recesses, but I want to raise one matter with him. When did he decide to abandon the September recess? My understanding was that the reason why we did not have a September recess this year—[Interruption.]

Geoff Hoon: September sitting.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful. The Leader of the House will know that we had no September sitting this year because of the construction of the security screen. It is finished and I was not aware that we needed another one for next year. Is this therefore a permanent decision? Will there be no September sittings in future? If so, when was that decision taken?
	Will the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster be in place to respond to next week's debate on the ministerial code? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Prime Minister seems to believe that the Cabinet Office is no longer an important part of his Government?
	At last week's business questions, I asked the Leader of the House for a statement and debate on trade justice before the Hong Kong trade summit in December. Since then, the preliminary talks have collapsed without agreement. Given that the Government know how strongly Members on both sides of the House feel about the issue and given the strength of the lobbies taking place outside this place, when will we get a statement about what has happened and what can be done to rectify the situation?
	Finally, I am sure that the Leader of the House shares my concern about the rising tide of violence in Britain. He will also be aware of the possible legal difficulties faced by many of our people—teachers, for example, trying to intervene to break up a fight in a school playground. In the light of recent events here, will he ensure that members of the Government Whips Office are given access to legal advice, so that they know exactly where they stand if they are forced to intervene to break up a fight in the Labour Lobby?

Geoff Hoon: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous, but I will start with the sublime. The rebate negotiated by Mrs. Thatcher at Fontainebleau—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I can tell that there is real nostalgia on the Conservative Benches for a period of firm leadership. She negotiated that rebate because of the imbalance in the operation of the common agricultural policy and the EU budget in respect of the United Kingdom. The Government have made it clear that as long as that imbalance continues, it will be necessary for us to maintain our position on the rebate. That is the Government's position and it has been set out by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of Exchequer on repeated occasions. I see no need for them to come before the House and say it yet again.
	I am sorry that we have not yet established a date for the pre-Budget report. As right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been travelling a lot lately, but I will pass the information on to the House as soon as it becomes available.
	As to recess dates and the September sitting, I have discussed the issue extensively with hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is clear that there is dissatisfaction about the arrangements for September sittings in the recent past. There are strong feelings about our returning for one week, or perhaps two, at the beginning of September, only then to break for the party conference season and return for a matter of weeks, before a further break for the Queen's Speech, as happens in most years. September sittings are important and the principle of having them ultimately needs to be revisited, but unless we can persuade the political parties to change their conference arrangements, I do not see how we can get the continuity of sitting arrangements that Members require. In the light of that, I have written to the chairs of each of the political parties, urging them to look at this matter and to consider having their conferences earlier in September, thereby allowing the House to return earlier and on a continuous basis, so that the sitting is sensible and manageable for all concerned. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the reason for this development is very much the reaction of Members from all political parties and in all parts of the House.
	On the ministerial code, I am confident that a highly experienced Minister will be available to deal with Tuesday's Opposition day debate. He will doubtless set out the Government's position with care and clarity.
	I dealt last week with the Lobby issue to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am full of admiration for the robust nature of the Government Whips Office. The Whips do their job extremely well.

David Heath: May I express my surprise that a decision has apparently been taken on September sittings without the House being properly consulted? However, I will leave it at that for the moment.
	Will the Leader of the House review our consideration of the Terrorism Bill over the past few weeks? I ask him to do so not for the obvious reasons, but because even though, in anybody's book, this is a very serious matter on which there are firmly held opinions in all parts of the House, a significant number of clauses and amendments were never considered, whether in Committee or on Report. The Bill will pass to another place without those views having been expressed in this elected House.
	Just a few moments ago, the other place commenced a debate, led by Lord May—as the Leader of the House knows, he is president of the Royal Society—on climate change. Lord May will express the opinion that this country is going to fail to meet its Kyoto targets, which is a matter of importance to us all. Can this House have a similar debate?
	What has happened to cross-cutting questions? Is that an experiment that has failed? We certainly seem not to have had any for a long time. Are we to have any ever again?
	Lastly, should we ever have a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster again, could he—or she—come to the House to account for the regulatory impact unit, which I believe is within his bailiwick? As was pointed out in consideration of a Bill on Monday, the accompanying explanatory notes contain the following extraordinary statement:
	"The Regulatory Impact Unit has confirmed that no Regulatory Impact Assessment is required."
	Is that really what the RIU is for—to tell us that we do not need to know what it might know, in case we form a view on it?

Geoff Hoon: I have made plain the position on September sittings. It is strongly supported in the House, and although the hon. Gentleman may have a different view, I am confident that it will also be supported elsewhere. It is important to emphasise that the Terrorism Bill, notwithstanding the fact that it did not come through Report stage in quite the form that the Government would have wished, nevertheless contains a wide range of measures that are important in tackling terrorism. That is something that we support. We want the Bill to come into effect and deal with the threat to the UK's safety and security that international terrorists pose.
	On climate change, I have met Lord May on several occasions. I am not a scientific expert, and at school was always encouraged to abandon scientific subjects, so I shall not quarrel about the advice that he has given, but his views and opinions are not shared by the Government. We believe that it is possible for this country to meet its Kyoto targets, and will go on working to that end.
	As for cross-cutting questions, there is no reason why they cannot be re-established. They have been useful for hon. Members in the past, and I am confident that they will be again.
	I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman got rather tied up in regulatory impact assessments. One of the joys of being Leader of the House is that I am required to look at the regulatory impact assessments of any new legislation that is introduced. They are fascinating, detailed and enthralling documents. When the unit decides that one is not necessary I, at least, am extremely grateful.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that the move to hold a fortnight of sittings in September was approved by a vote on the Floor of the House? Yes, opinion was divided, but does he agree that we should be adult enough to accept that, although consultation is necessary—I do not know who was consulted at the time—it is also important to have a debate and reach a decision? The House will know what to do, and it may be possible to hold those sittings again. There will be some inconvenience, perhaps to the Liberal Democrat party conference, but the House has a duty to vote on the matter. That is how we started it, and that is how we must finish it.

Geoff Hoon: My announcement in no way affects the normal way that the House deals with its sitting dates or with my proposals. That will not change.

Eric Forth: I support the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The Leader of the House will recall that one of the main arguments in favour of September sittings was that they would allow the House to hold the Government to account during the long summer period when they would otherwise have a completely free ride. I have a positive suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman that, if he allows it, we can follow up in the debate requested by the hon. Member for Bolsover. Why cannot the House come back in September and sit in the normal way except for three weeks when it would sit on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday? That would allow those ludicrous conferences—if we must have them—to take place over a weekend. Real people could then attend them, instead of the ones who normally do so during the week.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman makes a helpful suggestion. I am certainly happy to listen to the political parties and learn whether they are willing and able to alter their arrangements. That is a logical consequence of my announcement, and of the contact that I have established with the parties to determine their future arrangements.
	However, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is a former Minister and knows full well that Governments do not get a free ride in September. He regularly writes to Ministers and raises issues with them, and they are required to respond, whether or not the House is sitting.

Chris Mullin: The decision to renege on September sittings confirms many hon. Members' suspicion that fitting the security screen was just an excuse. Does my right hon. Friend recall that the decision to hold sittings in September—which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly says was agreed by the House—was originally described by the late Robin Cook as a deal, in exchange for which we had family-friendly sittings to coincide with the school half terms? He may have detected some dissatisfaction in the House with September sittings, but a wholly different perception prevails among people outside. They think that we ought to hold the Government to account during September, and I cannot see why we should not. May I urge my right hon. Friend to allow the House to debate the matter, so that hon. Members can hear the arguments for and against?

Geoff Hoon: Again, my hon. Friend is conscientious about holding Ministers to account, whether or not the House is sitting. He writes to Ministers regularly, and they reply to him: that has always been a way of holding the Government to account during recesses.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that a wholly different perception about September sittings prevails outside the House. However, hon. Members consistently tell me that in that period they are able to attend events, meetings and organisations in their constituencies in a way that is simply not possible when the House is sitting. My hon. Friend has made observations about this matter to the media on a number of occasions, and he may need to make it clear that hon. Members work in their constituencies as well as in the Chamber of the House of Commons. That is an important point to get across.

Andrew MacKay: May I be helpful to the Leader of the House and move off September sittings? Does he accept that when two senior, experienced, ex-Cabinet Ministers table an early-day motion, the House should take careful note? Does he agree that he should read early-day motion 994 in the names of my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell)?
	[That this House condemns the unprecedented campaign to mobilise chief constables to lobby honourable Members in favour of Government policy; fears that this is a damaging step towards the politicisation of the police; understands that the Government's threat to merge police forces has put additional pressure on chief constables, all of whom may shortly be up for reselection, to acquiesce in demands for them to endorse Government policy; regrets that some chief constables gave the measure their backing even though they and their forces had no local experience of the problems allegedly making it necessary; calls on them in future to leave lobbying and advocacy to others; praises the police for their courage and dedication in tackling terrorism; accepts that police have a duty to offer Ministers in confidence advice and evidence based on that experience; but believes the essence of Ministerial responsibility is that Ministers alone are responsible for the advice and evidence that they accept and the policy conclusions they reach; and deplores the Government's attempts to escape that responsibility by invoking the authority of public servants thereby embroiling them in politics.]
	It states clearly that it is wrong for the Government to encourage senior police officers to intervene in the political process. This politicisation of the police is most unwelcome in our democracy. Can we have a guarantee that when the Terrorism Bill returns from the House of Lords, this disgraceful exercise will not be repeated?

Geoff Hoon: I have not read the specific terms of early-day motion 994, but I assure the House that I will. Presumably there are 993 early-day motions before it and I have not read each and every one of them. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think about what he has just said to the House. No one is suggesting that police officers should be politicised or that they should interfere in political debate, but this House is not only entitled but requires to know what the police view is of the powers that they need to deal with the threat to our security caused by terrorism. It would be absurd—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested this— if somehow the House took decisions in isolation of the police view, and I regret yesterday's decision because that was the basis on which the matter was put to the House. Obviously the House is entitled to take a different view, but it is vital that we do not ignore that police view of the powers they require to tackle international terrorism.

David Taylor: As the chairman of the all-party group on smoking and health I am getting a great deal of contact from organisations expressing concern that the date for the Second Reading of the Health Bill, including controls over tobacco smoking in workplaces, has yet to be announced. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether it will take place before Christmas? Will we publish the regulations that will describe the exemptions that the Secretary of State for Health announced in such a controversial fashion? Why is there a need for a second consultation when the first consultation over the summer produced 60,000 responses, 90 per cent. of which said that there was a need for a comprehensive ban?

Geoff Hoon: The Second Reading is on track. The Government have a considerable amount of legislation to bring before the House and that must be done sensibly. I can assure my hon. Friend that he will be able to debate the Second Reading of the Health Bill soon.

David Davies: Further to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), can the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement about the growing politicisation of the police force and explain why the Association of Chief Police Officers is behaving like an affiliated branch of the Labour party?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes with some justification that he has been to the House quite a lot lately and I anticipate that that will continue today, so the hon. Gentleman's observation is not fair, nor borne out by the facts. I might say the same about his views on ACPO. When I was in opposition I do not recall Conservative Ministers ever being reluctant to tell us of the views of senior police officers. Usually they were warning us that somehow or other we were failing to accept that opinion. It is a demonstration of how times have changed that now it is this Government—this political party—who are concerned about the views of the police and protecting the security of the British people while the Conservative party has disappeared off somewhere on the libertarian right.

David Chaytor: Following yesterday's events, would my right hon. Friend find time for a debate entitled, "How the House deals with controversial issues"? Regardless of one's view—yesterday I was happy to vote for the 90-day maximum period—it would have been better if the matter could have been handled differently. Given the amount of legislation in the pipeline, which may be equally controversial, would it not be useful to air these issues for a longer lead-in period to build consensus both within and between the political parties?

Geoff Hoon: I recognise that always when sharp differences of opinion arise it would be helpful, if the timetable allowed, to have more time for debate and discussion. However, when we face the kind of terrorist threat that the country faces, the amount of time available for debate necessarily must be limited. On my hon. Friend's wider point, inevitably the House must find ways of resolving difficult and divisive questions. If all issues were straightforward, we certainly would not need lawyers—my previous profession—Members of Parliament or Ministers. The truth is we need people to exercise their judgment and it is important that this House is the place where differences are resolved and decided on.

Iris Robinson: Could the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the viability of public-private partnerships or private finance initiatives, particularly within the education sector, as they are causing delays in providing a new purpose-built school which was earmarked for children with profound special needs at Tor Bank school in my constituency? At present they have to negotiate between out-of-date portakabins situated on a steep hill. I am sure that the House will agree that that is wholly unacceptable.

Geoff Hoon: I am aware of the considerable extra spending that has been made available in Northern Ireland to deal with a backlog of repairs and rebuilding in the education sector as well as in the health sector. It is important that we continue to use private sector funding through PPPs as a means of adding to the amount of capital spending that can be achieved. That has been successful, certainly in other parts of the country, and I am sure that it will be successful in Northern Ireland. Obviously there needs to be proper checks and safeguards to ensure that that money is properly spent and is part of the overall Government spending alongside the private sector. From time to time that takes more time than would be the case if simple capital provision were made available, but the benefit to the whole country of that extra finance is that we can do more. We can rebuild and repair more schools, more hospitals and more public institutions.

David Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend share the sense of shame that Members across the House feel about the way in which we treat the cleaners in this building? Again yesterday they felt it necessary to go on strike to make us aware of what is happening. There is also a sense of frustration when we try to find a way forward, but are told that it has nothing to do with us. Can the Leader of the House please organise a debate or statement so that we can discuss how we treat the people who look after us?

Geoff Hoon: This issue has been raised with me on a number of previous occasions. In the past the two specific points raised were, first, the provision of accommodation for cleaners and, secondly, the level of remuneration. I have looked at both matters. As I understand it, accommodation has now been provided for cleaning staff and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that that is a significant improvement. An offer of 15 per cent. extra remuneration has been made to cleaning staff. I understand that that offer has not yet been accepted by their trade union. I have made it clear to the Transport and General Workers Union that I would be willing to meet its representatives to discuss the problem, but a significant offer of 15 per cent. has been made.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State is a former experienced Defence Secretary, so he will consider sympathetically my request for a debate on defence procurement, and especially the need for the Minister responsible for defence procurement to retain the confidence of industries and businesses in the defence sector. Before the noble Lord Drayson was appointed to the post of Minister with responsibility for defence procurement, did the Government carry out due diligence into his former company, PowderJect? In particular, did they look closely into PowderJect's relationship with the relevant regulator?

Geoff Hoon: As I announced to the House at the start of business questions, there will be a debate on Thursday 17 November on defence in the United Kingdom. Those themed debates allow for hon. Members to raise any issue they choose, and it will be a long debate on defence in the UK. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise that point during that debate.

Anne Moffat: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the introduction of primary legislation to control ship-to-ship oil transfers? Under one proposal, there could be ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth in my constituency, the consequences of which could be devastating for my community.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise her constituents' concerns. I hope that she will forgive me, as this is not a subject with which I am wholly familiar, but I will ensure that the Minister who is responsible for this matter responds directly to her.

Julian Lewis: When the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill is debated next week, may we have coupled with it a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confirming that there can be no question of service personnel who undertook authorised operations during the troubles finding themselves in court on charges involving those operations? Does he agree that otherwise it would be difficult for us to look the veterans of that long conflict in the eye on Remembrance Sunday or at any other time?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that difficult issue concerning members of the armed forces and the security services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will open the debate on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. This is not an easy issue for anyone, and no one pretends that it is.
	The benefit that we get from moving forward with the peace process is clear. This is about reducing the level ofterrorism in Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Opposition Members who are commenting from a sedentary position should ask themselves whether they believe that it is better to see continuing terrorism in Northern Ireland or—[Interruption.] They are scoffing, but this legislation is necessary as it is part of the Good Friday agreement and the arrangements that were made with a terrorist organisation that for many years has been on ceasefire. We cannot have the salami-slicing logic that says that we can somehow make progress on peace and reduce tension and violence in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom without taking the difficult decisions that are necessary. This is part of a package. If we want continuing improvement in the peace process in that difficult part of the country, we must inevitably take these difficult decisions.

Paul Flynn: The Leader of the House has answered three questions about September sittings, but he has inadvertently not told us whether he is in favour of a debate. Will he state clearly whether we will have a debate and a vote on the restoration of September sittings?

Geoff Hoon: The previous discussions were part of the usual process by which the House determines the dates of its sittings and recesses. Nothing has been changed by the announcement that I made today.

Lorely Burt: Would it be possible to have a debate on ovarian cancer? Of the 7,000 women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year, tragically 5,000 die. Next week, together with the family members of women from my constituency, I shall present a petition to the Prime Minister in Downing street to ask that that take place. This is such a difficult issue. We need considerably more resources to research ways of diagnosing ovarian cancer.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue, which is vital to women and their families throughout the country. There has been a significant improvement in the rates of detection and cure for cancer across the board, but it is a particularly vicious form of the disease. It is right that she should highlight the issue and that the Government should continue, with the support of Members of Parliament, to put extra resources into dealing with it.

Clive Betts: Would my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the state of our bus services in metropolitan areas? It would give me the opportunity to express the real anger in Sheffield at Firstbus's decision to increase fares again, some by more than 15 per cent. It is the fourth fare increase in 12 months. It is not surprising that passenger numbers are 30 per cent. down on what they were 10 years ago. Surely we need a change to the non-regulatory framework, which has seen continual cuts in services, regular fare increases and a regular and consistent fall in passenger numbers.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise the particular circumstances in Sheffield as they affect his constituents. He will know that across the country there has been a significant increase in bus useage.

Clive Betts: In London.

Geoff Hoon: Right across the country. I would be happy to let my hon. Friend have the statistics. There has been a considerable improvement in the use of buses by the travelling public, and the Government continue to encourage that.

Bob Spink: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we had September sittings, as I believe we should, that would give us the opportunity to debate important issues such as animal welfare? We could then explore ways of stopping the cruel and unnecessary export to Europe of live animals for slaughter. That trade must be stopped.

Geoff Hoon: I know that that issue interests right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I recall from my days as a Member of the European Parliament that a number of colleagues consistently campaigned on the issue, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

Edward Miliband: According to the House of Commons Library, there has not been a debate in Government time on new services and issues related to young people for many years, indeed decades. Moreover, the "Youth Matters" Green Paper was published in July at the time of the tragic events of the bombings, so no statement was made in the House. Will he consider with colleagues whether it is possible to make Government time available for a debate on the important issues of the Green Paper, youth services and the wider matters relating to young people, which are of concern to many hon. Members?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has published the Green Paper, which contains great detail on the importance of providing services and facilities for young people. They are often criticised by older people for hanging around on street corners and behaving inappropriately. I am sure that my hon. Friend is, by implication, making the point that the Government have a responsibility to deal with antisocial behaviour and to ensure that young people have opportunities to participate in activities. The Green Paper is a way of promoting such activities.

Mark Pritchard: Would the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the Government's flawed decision to close the Army Base Repair Organisation in my constituency, with the loss of 628 jobs? Does he regret the comments that he made when he visited my constituency in February this year? He seemed to suggest to the work force that Donnington had an optimistic future.

Geoff Hoon: The announcement made by the Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram), was designed to ensure that our front line continues to have the best quality and the most cost-effective support in terms of the Defence budget—as, in general, Opposition Members observed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting, by implication, that we should not continue to provide our armed forces with that cost-effective support. That was the purpose of the inevitably difficult decisions taken to ensure proper support for our armed forces. It necessarily involves job losses, which I regret, but that is the price we pay for ensuring that we devote the right resources to getting the right kind of armed forces for the 21st century.

Lynne Jones: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 888.
	[That this House believes there should be a free vote on the issues of ending smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places when Part 1 of the Health Bill is debated.]
	It calls for a free vote on smoke-free public places and has been signed by 49 Members, most of them from the Labour Benches, yet I understand that last week my right hon. Friend responded negatively to that suggestion, referring to the Labour manifesto. If that is the case, why did the Government carry out a consultation on the matter? Will he reconsider, as he knows that four out of five respondents called for a comprehensive ban? Does he know when the results of the consultation are to be published—and if he does not, will he find out?

Geoff Hoon: I think that I also made the point last week that in the past my hon. Friend has not been slow to criticise Ministers for sticking to the manifesto. It is important, so soon after a general election, that we continue to support the manifesto on which she, I and other right hon. and hon. Members were elected. That is the basis for the decision that the Government have taken.

Nigel Evans: Is it possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for an early debate on road maintenance funding for local authorities? Lancashire county council has a budget of £40 million a year for road maintenance, yet it has a £600 million backlog. Over the past 10 years, there has been a considerable number of deaths and injuries on the A59 in my constituency, and the situation can only get worse. May we have an early debate on that important matter?

Geoff Hoon: That is an important issue. Sufficient funds are allocated to local authorities to ensure that they can maintain their roads satisfactorily. Obviously, they face different challenges in different parts of the country, but I am confident that Lancashire has sufficient funds to deal with current road maintenance.

David Winnick: One of the welcome changes from Tory years was September sittings. The word "recess" is wholly unknown to the general public; to them, we appear to be taking a 10 or 11-week holiday, so is it not a backward step to stop September sittings? In previous years, we broke up for 11 weeks. Our duty is first and foremost in the House of Commons, but September sittings in no way prevent us from carrying out our usual visits and other activities in our constituencies. As I see it, not holding them is simply an excuse for not being here for two weeks. Will my right hon. Friend promise that the matter will be further considered? We should not abandon what I and many Labour Members believe was a welcome change in the procedures of the House of Commons.

Geoff Hoon: I am certainly willing to continue to keep the matter under review. I have made it clear that the overwhelming majority of Members who have contacted me on the issue were against September sittings, as recently organised. I repeat to my hon. Friend what I set out to the House: what is important is that there should be continuity in our arrangements, but that is not possible while the party conferences take place towards the end of September and in October. If that could be adjusted, I would strongly support the idea of a late September sitting.

Pete Wishart: I, too, want to bring up the issue of the next summer recess, but I want the Leader of the House to refer to July, not September. Why, once again, is the summer recess due to start halfway through the Scottish school holiday? Why, when we are off for such an inordinate length of time, can we not have a summer recess that accommodates all parts of the UK, so that we can all spend equal time with our children?

Geoff Hoon: I have spent so much time over the past few weeks poring over details of the different holiday arrangements organised by local authorities throughout the whole of the UK that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it would not be possible to provide a recess that satisfied each and every Member and the various arrangements in each and every part of the country. There must necessarily be compromises on the dates and I have made a number of them. Obviously, I cannot take every circumstance into account.

Nia Griffith: Given that increasing aggression is shown towards our emergency workers, will my right hon. Friend announce as a matter of urgency a new date for the cancelled Second Reading on 24 February of the private Member's Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the Father of the House, which would extend to emergency workers the same sort of protection currently enjoyed by the police?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. Material recently published by the TUC recounts the number of occasions when emergency workers, in the course of doing their job of saving lives, have come under physical attack. I find that absolutely astonishing. It is scandalous and appalling. She is right to raise the issue and we must continue to regard it seriously.

Edward Garnier: I know that the Leader of the House is a keen supporter—and, indeed, a keen student—of the constitutional proprieties and that as a former Secretary of State for Defence he would have been surprised had Army, Navy and Air Force commanders telephoned, written or e-mailed to Members of Parliament to advance Government defence policy. Will he therefore ask the Home Secretary to come urgently to the House to give a statement about why the Home Office instructed senior police officers to do just that?
	Furthermore, if he is in touch with the Home Secretary—he may not be—will he ask the right hon. Gentleman to come here and make an urgent statement on police reorganisation? I understand that there has been consultation with senior police officers about the matter, but that the Government have already reached the view that there should be regional police forces rather than any other form of reorganised police.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. and learned Gentleman put his question with his usual elegance. I am always grateful that we do not have to pay his usual fees for the quality of his questions. His question about constitutional proprieties has already been raised several times today and I shall certainly give him the same answer: police officers made available to Members vital information so that they could decide a very important question. The implication of the hon. and learned Gentleman's elegant question is that somehow or other we should not have such information before making up our minds. That may be the position that the Conservative party has chosen to adopt—it does not appear to care for the views of the police on such questions and that, presumably, is the continuing logic of the refusal of Conservative Members to take account of what the police actually requested.
	The consultation on police reorganisation will continue. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman can participate in those discussions.

Michael Connarty: When my right hon. Friend gets around to reading the book of early-day motions, which I know he takes seriously, I hope that he will reach early-day motion 972, on the Post Office and UK passport services.
	[That this House notes that key passport services have been provided across the UK for many years through the Post Office network with the result that Post Office Ltd and its employees have developed considerable knowledge and experience of these services, yet that the UK Passport Service intends to procure 70 new offices to act as sites for interview for first time passport applicants under rules that will not allow interviews on premises that also provide Post Office services; believes that security sensitive services like passport interviews should be carried out by civil servants in suitable publicly-owned offices; does not believe that the creation of a new network of privately owned offices at considerable expense to the taxpayer is either necessary or desirable when the proposal contains rules which deny the Post Office a level playing field on which to compete and denies the public the use of available Crown post offices which they have indicated they prefer to use in the pilot studies while simultaneously undermining the long-term viability of a publicly-owned enterprise; and calls on the Government and UK Passport Services to alter the rules to allow the utilisation of the Post Office network to carry out these interviews.]
	Will my right hon. Friend ask the responsible Home Office Minister to explain to the House how the Government could draw up a contract whereby the Post Office cannot use Crown offices or offices also used for postal services to interview people for their first passport, thus preventing the Post Office, which we own, from using premises in every high street for that service? That is a ludicrous decision, which threatens the Post Office and will force taxpayers to pay for 70 new outlets that will be used only for passport interviews. That wholly ludicrous decision should be explained to the House.

Geoff Hoon: As ever, my hon. Friend puts his case well on behalf of the Post Office. I shall ensure that the relevant Minister replies to him directly.

Nigel Dodds: Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister urged us to support legislation on the basis that it was supported by the public at large and by the police, yet on the very same day the Government brought forward legislation to give an amnesty to terrorists on the run, which is opposed by the public and the police. Does not that send a signal that far from being tough on terror, as the Government like to pretend, they are actually in the business of abjectly appeasing terrorists in Northern Ireland, and that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists? Is not it clear that the proposal is outside the terms of even the Belfast agreement? The Government should not pretend that the legislation extends the rolling out of the agreement—a point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and other members of the Social Democratic and Labour party who supported the agreement.

Geoff Hoon: I am not going to trade with the hon. Gentleman remarks about the situation in Northern Ireland. He has experienced that and knows that far better than I ever will. All I say to him is that this is not an amnesty. The Bill sets out a legal process that will be undertaken in relation to those who have been on the run and who allegedly committed offences before the signing of the Good Friday agreement. He is right that no specific detail in that agreement deals with the issue, but it was part of the wider agreements surrounding the peace process that were made by the Government and other Governments involved in ensuring a ceasefire and continuing peace in Northern Ireland.
	As I said, I will not trade remarks about the circumstances in Northern Ireland with him. He knows them much better than I ever will. All I say to him is that there has been a continuing peace, that the terrorists are on ceasefire and that it is important that we continue to do what is necessary to preserve that. Again, he knows the situation in Northern Ireland much better than I do. Surely it is better for the people of Northern Ireland that we should take these difficult decisions and preserve the peace, rather than risk a return to terrorist violence.

Gordon Prentice: What does my Friend think of early-day motion 985?
	[That this House believes that no person should be elevated to the peerage who has donated more than £5,000 to a political party in any five-year period.]
	Is it not a disgrace that we are elevating to the peerage people who have given hundreds of thousands of pounds to political parties? May we have a debate on the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which has the job of vetting those appointments and ensuring propriety?

Geoff Hoon: I have noticed over the years—I think that my hon. Friend and I were elected to the House at about the same time—that he tends to have a conspiratorial view of politics and the Government. I am confident that the decisions about elevation to the peerage are taken on perfectly proper grounds in relation to the distinguished contribution to public life that each of those individuals has made.

Andrew Turner: Now that the Terrorism Bill has almost reached a conclusion in the House, may we have a debate on what the Government are doing, which does not require legislative change, to protect in particular the users of the tube and buses in London?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point, but I am sure as well that he will reflect on the fact that there are limits to the amount of information that the Government can make available about precisely the kind of measures to which he refers. As soon as that information is made available, it is obviously a gift to potential terrorists, who would then seek to disrupt those arrangements. There is a balance to be struck. It is obviously important to demonstrate to the public that it is safe to use public transport and to go about their lives in the way in which we want them to continue to do, but we must be concerned about the serious and continuing threat that exists. We must explain that in a way that does not unnecessarily arouse fears. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that this is an important issue that the Government need to continue to set out clearly to both the House and the wider public.

Kerry McCarthy: To return to the subject of the House of Commons cleaners, which was mentioned earlier, my understanding is that the 15 per cent. offer that is on the table is not an overall increase in the amount of money available; it is dependent on about 30 jobs being cut and a reduction in hours. We have some cleaners who are working up to 75 hours a week to try to make ends meet, so I am not sure what will happen. May I urge my right hon. Friend to meet the union representatives, as he has offered to do, and then make a statement to the House on how those discussions have gone?

Geoff Hoon: I have already met union officials from the Transport and General Workers Union. I will meet them again. A letter has gone out indicating that I would be willing to have those conversations. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on the fact that it is also important that Members and members of the Government do not get involved in detailed, day-to-day negotiations about the terms and conditions. Two specific issues were raised with me on a previous occasion and I had those issues investigated. I believe that they have been resolved satisfactorily and that a 15 per cent. increase in the rate available to individual cleaners is a very good offer, particularly in the present economic situation.

Shailesh Vara: May I return to a question that has been asked already by right hon. and hon. Friends about the relationship between the police and Ministers? I regret that the matter has to be repeated for the benefit of the Leader of the House, but the problem is that he is not answering the question that has been put to him. It is all very well him saying that it is proper for the police to have conversations with Members, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether it is right for Home Office Ministers, their employees and other staff there to encourage police officers to contact Members of Parliament about how they should vote. With that in mind, may I please ask again whether the Leader of the House will consider asking the Home Secretary to come to the House to make an appropriate statement?

Geoff Hoon: I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be in the House later today. I am sure that the opportunity will be available to raise the issue with him if the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so. Again, the implication of his question is that I am somehow slow in understanding these matters—if I am, I apologise to the House, but I do not think that I am. What he is saying is that, somehow or other, it appears to be inappropriate for police officers to set out their views to Members of Parliament—[Interruption.] I have not quite finished. If he can give an illustration of where a police officer has indicated to a Member of Parliament that he should vote in a specific way, that is a matter that perhaps we should consider, but I understand that police officers have been indicating to Members of Parliament, as they have done certainly all the time that I have been a Member, their views on the appropriate level of protection that the House should consider making available to the public. I repeat that it is a matter of considerable regret that the modern Conservative party does not appear to take that information as seriously as its predecessors once did.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I take the Leader of the House back to the reply that he gave me last week? When I asked for a free vote on a total smoking ban, he impertinently suggested that I was not supporting the manifesto on which he and I were elected. That is a dangerous argument for him to advance. Does he really want me to produce an audit of those things that we have implemented that were not in our manifesto and those things that were in our manifesto that we have not yet implemented? The manifesto did not say, "Thus far and no further"—it said that there would be a smoking ban, which is a commitment that he and I will support on the Second Reading of the Health Bill. What hon. Members want is the opportunity to make the ban effective and comprehensive; if it is understood with clarity and precision, it will work. Will he give us that free vote—or at least think about it?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry if my hon. Friend felt that I was treating him with any less respect than I always treat his questions, but it is important for the House and, indeed, for those who have elected all hon. Members that people have the confidence that Members of Parliament seek to implement the manifestos that they set out to the public. The Labour manifesto on which he and I were elected was very specific about the compromise that is necessary to protect people's health from secondary smoking. It is not as though the manifesto was in any way in doubt on that issue. I respect my hon. Friend's efforts to move the debate along beyond the terms of the manifesto, but he must give me a pretty strong argument for why he and I should depart from the very specific compromise set out in the manifesto; until he does, I will give him the same answer.

Roger Williams: As the Leader of the House pointed out earlier, we are in a period of consultation about the future structure of police authorities throughout the country, yet a member of the Cabinet has already made it very clear that his preferred option in Wales is a single police force. If one member of the Cabinet has made clear his point of view, is that the view of the whole Cabinet? If so, why do we need the consultation period? Will the Leader of the House provide some time so that we can debate on the Floor of the House the future of the police authorities in England and Wales because that is of such importance?

Geoff Hoon: First, there is a consultation. There is a wide range of views on the appropriate structure of police forces. Most Members of Parliament to whom I have spoken about the issue—indeed, most police officers and even police authorities that I have contacted—recognise that the existing structure of 43 authorities is not necessarily how anyone would have devised the structure if they were starting from scratch, so it is right that we should have a consultation. I am hugely delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his place, ready to participate, given the considerable number of requests that have been made for his attendance. Hon. Members can see that the Government deliver.

Martin Salter: As a member of the Modernisation Committee that proposed the September recalls, I fully accept that they have proved neither popular nor successful with many hon. Members, as I am sure that a vote on the Floor of the House would demonstrate. However, does the Leader of the House accept that three months is far too long for any Government to escape parliamentary scrutiny? Will he consider allowing hon. Members to table written questions during part of what will be an extended summer recess?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his practical and realistic view of the September sittings. He was a member of the Modernisation Committee at the relevant time, so it is interesting for the House to hear to his thoughts in the light of our experience. One consequence of not having September sittings is that we need to examine whether there are other ways in which the Government can be held to account. I am certainly willing to consider his suggestion.

Graham Stuart: Following on from the many contributions on this subject, may I broaden the question of the role—and perhaps, in this case, the use—of public servants in political debate? Notwithstanding the Leader of the House repeatedly saying that Conservative Members do not want to hear the words of the police, may we have a debate on the role of public servants and how we go forward so that we can examine the proprieties and ensure that we do not see what many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel is the blatant political use of public servants in Government policy?

Geoff Hoon: I am beginning to have the slight suspicion that there is an element of co-ordination on these matters on the Opposition Benches. I get the slight sense that they might have been discussed earlier. Nevertheless, I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's question directly. It is important for the views of public servants and officials throughout the country to be communicated to the House. I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is objecting to. Distinguished public servants have a view—[Interruption.] Including former diplomats. In a democracy, we all have to listen to that view.
	What I do not understand about this line of argument—perhaps the shadow Leader of the House needs to co-ordinate his efforts more successfully—is that it would mean that, when Members of Parliament were making up their minds on difficult issues, they would not have available to them the views of those who would be most affected by the decisions and whose job it is, if we are talking about the police, to protect this country. It is self-evident that we need such information so that we can make up our minds.

Lynda Waltho: Will my right hon. Friend schedule a debate on the effects of the Licensing Act 2003, which is due to bite from 24 November? I am perturbed by the problems that are coming up. Dudley council, which is my local authority, is allowing blanket later openings for pubs, but it is expected that that will have a devastating effect, certainly in Stourbridge town centre. I am being inundated with concerns from residents, businesses and the local police about what will happen.

Geoff Hoon: My constituents have raised 24-hour drinking with me in my constituency surgery. They have been alarmed about it, but not one single public house in my constituency has been given permission to open for 24 hours—I am not even aware that any have applied for it. The difficulty is that a great deal of mischief has been created on 24-hour drinking and overshadowed the considerable changes to the licensing arrangements that have been introduced, not least those that allow local authorities, local communities and individuals to have a much bigger say in the licensing arrangements that might operate in their areas. The proposals mean that local communities that are affected by licensing hours will have a much better opportunity to state their case and get their point across.

Peter Bone: Last night, I was contacted by an upset constituent, Mr. Nigel Anderson, about his wife who gave birth to a baby girl at the local hospital at 4.30 am, but was told that she would have to leave the hospital by 9 am that same day, despite the fact that she was in distress and wanted to stay overnight. I understand that the local hospital used to have four maternity wards, but now has only one. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make an urgent statement on what seems to be an appalling situation?

Geoff Hoon: I am not going to comment on that specific case, but I shall ensure that a Minister from the Department of Health contacts the hon. Gentleman to give him relevant information in response to what certainly sounds like an unfortunate occurrence.

Jim Sheridan: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 995?
	[That this House condemns Hewlett Packard for abandoning their manufacturing base in Scotland and transferring it to the Czech Republic in order to exploit cheap labour in that country; and notes that 200 jobs in manufacturing will be lost as a result of this corporate greed.]
	The early-day motion refers to the disgraceful decision by Hewlett Packard in my constituency to transfer its manufacturing facility from Scotland to the Czech Republic, which will mean that 200 quality manufacturing jobs will be lost. The decision was driven by corporate greed and the exploitation of cheap labour in eastern Europe. May we have a debate on corporate greed and perhaps review our current employment legislation so that we can stop these faceless corporate magnates from making decisions in which their workers have no input?

Geoff Hoon: I have read the early-day motion and recognise my hon. Friend's concern. I congratulate him on the way in which he has raised the matter. It is important for us all to have regard to the pressures of corporate competition and to recognise the efforts that the Government have been making to ensure that we have the right skills, training and education so that our work force can continue to meet the pressure of international competition to which he refers.
	I know that my hon. Friend would not suggest that we should engage in wholesale protectionism because that would not serve the interests of his constituents. The Government must ensure that those people who have sadly lost their jobs as a result of the decision are provided with opportunities, training and education so that they can quickly return to the labour market. The healthy economy that the Government have established since 1997 makes that all the more possible.

Mark Harper: I impress on the Leader of the House the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—I am pleased that the Home Secretary is in the Chamber. Yesterday, when others may have been diverted by the important debate in the House on the Terrorism Bill, the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety wrote to hon. Members and chief constables to announce the interim decisions of the Home Office on police force restructuring. The letter makes it clear that the Home Office has ruled out practically every option for my local force in the south-west. The Department has posited only two options for the south-west: a south-west strategic force, or two sub-regional forces. Given that the House has not yet been notified of a decision of such magnitude—although I understand that a written statement will be made tomorrow—surely either an urgent debate or an oral statement would be in order. Will the Leader of the House arrange that at the earliest possible opportunity?

Geoff Hoon: I have made it clear that there will be opportunities to discuss the proposals for police force restructuring. The detailed consultation exercise is clearly engaging hon. Members because several of them have raised the matter today. I am confident that there will be every opportunity to discuss any decisions before they are implemented.

David Simpson: Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government have cut funding to young enterprise programmes throughout the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot, but I will find out.

Point of Order

Clive Betts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In response to my question about bus services, I think that the Leader of the House—inadvertently, I am sure—gave some incorrect information. While it is true that bus passenger numbers have grown considerably inside London, they have generally fallen outside London in recent years. Would it be possible for the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Transport to make an early oral or written statement to correct the information that was given?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It sounded very much like an extra question to the Leader of the House, and the hon. Gentleman has been lucky to get it on record.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Terrorism Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It is only a little over two weeks since the Bill had its Second Reading, but I do not think that anyone could claim that it has not been subject to proper scrutiny, both in the House and in the country more generally. The Bill has, very properly, been fully discussed and debated, and what we have clearly represents the will of the House. I reject the suggestion made by some hon. Members yesterday that there has been insufficient opportunity to debate it. We held the Committee stage on the Floor of the House for two days to allow all right hon. and hon. Members to take part, we introduced a second programme motion to extend the time available on Report, and, of course, we now have ahead of us much more time for Third Reading than is customarily the case.
	As the House will know, it had been my wish and that of the whole Government to proceed by means of consensus. To the degree that that has been possible, I pay tribute to my counterparts in the other parties for their co-operation and willingness to engage and talk about the various issues that we have had to address. However, I regret that it has not been possible to achieve consensus in all respects, in particular regarding the length of pre-charge detention. Nevertheless, the Government have made it clear all along that if, for any reason, consensus broke down, we would not hesitate to press ahead with measures that we felt were necessary in the fight against terrorism.
	We remain of the view that the offence of encouragement to terrorism is needed and that it needs to be framed in the way in which the House has now agreed. In line with our manifesto commitment, it needs to encompass the glorification of terrorism, and I am glad that the House explicitly endorsed that again yesterday. There is no reason why people should be allowed to glorify the terrorist acts of others in such a way as to encourage others to prepare and commit acts of terrorism.
	As we always intended, and announced as long ago as July, we have created new offences relating to acts preparatory to terrorism and terrorist training. We have also created a new offence of attending a terrorist training camp. No one has any good cause knowingly to attend a place where terrorist training is taking place.
	Moreover, the new offences will give the United Kingdom the ability to ratify two important international conventions—the United Nations convention on the suppression of nuclear terrorism and the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism. I am sure that the whole House will recognise the importance of working internationally in the fight against terrorism. The Bill will also extend the offence of criminal trespass to cover civil nuclear sites so that we can protect them, because they are an obviously tempting target for terrorists. However—I stress this, particularly in the light of our debates—nothing that we are doing in any way disturbs the absolute right to protest peacefully.
	Let me turn to the issue that has probably attracted the most attention—that of the maximum pre-charge detention period. Yesterday the House made a decision on that. It is perfectly proper for it to reach such a decision and I make absolutely no complaint that Members of Parliament have exercised their ability to vote in the way in which they have all individually chosen. What I do regret is that the House has chosen to ignore the professional advice of our law enforcement and prosecution agencies, which we employ to protect us from the very real threat that we face from terrorists. I believed that a maximum pre-charge detention period of 90 days was in the best security interests of the country and I remain of the view that we were right to take the course that we did. Nevertheless, and for the avoidance of doubt, the Government accept the decision that the House has taken and we will not be seeking to overturn it in another place.

David Howarth: Will the Home Secretary clear something up? In our discussions yesterday on this very issue, I asked him about the possibility of questioning suspects after charge. In his response, he said:
	"The hypothesis that we are discussing is that, in a number of cases, there is no possibility of charging on a short-term basis."—[Official Report, 9 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 333.]
	I have had the opportunity to read the code for Crown prosecutors, which says that the test of whether to charge is merely "reasonable suspicion" in cases in which it is intended to hold the suspect, and that reasonable suspicion can include consideration of future evidence. Is it really the Government's policy that people against whom even reasonable suspicion is not present should be held? That strikes me as close to internment.

Charles Clarke: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman reheats yesterday's discussion. I reject entirely the idea that our proposals can be called internment by any other name. That is quite wrong. He should consider the issue carefully in the light of the possibility—he may reject it, but it is real—that there may be people who threaten our country whom we are not able to charge in the way that we would like.
	The House yesterday also accepted the sunset clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). As I have since discussed with him, his amendment is technically defective. I hasten to say that that it is not in any sense a criticism, but simply a reflection of the fact that he cannot call on the services of parliamentary counsel. However, it does mean that the Government will need to table an amendment in another place to replace it.

David Winnick: I welcome that. The most important consideration is that the House has an opportunity to debate every year, if necessary, the powers of detention. However much we disagree about 90 or 28 days, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reject with contempt allegations made—outside, of course—that those of us who have a different view, and 28 days was the majority decision, have any less understanding of the acute terrorist danger that our country faces from mass murderers? We are surely at one on this. I hope that he shares my contempt at some of the stories that have appeared today.

Charles Clarke: To be frank, I accept what my hon. Friend says in his personal case. That is true. He has a long and distinguished record of combating terrorism in a variety of ways and has consistently argued for that. He has a different view of the appropriateness of the length of pre-charge detention, but, as I said publicly in broadcasts today, he personally acted with integrity, in a way that is within the traditions of the House.
	If my hon. Friend will forgive me, however, I will not take the invitation to say the same about everyone who voted for his amendment. There were people in the House—I do not desire to name names, and I was not intending to say this unless in response to such a point—who do not fully appreciate the nature of the threat with which we have to deal. That is my view.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Home Secretary accept that people in Nottinghamshire know about the threat and accept that it exists? Will he take my reassurance that my office and my phone have been busy today with people backing the 90-day detention period? They believe that he and the Prime Minister were right, and they would like that to be pursued.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for that comment. It is the case that all recent tests of opinion, as well as the feedback that I have received informally from a large number of colleagues in the House, reflect my hon. Friend's experience in his constituency. I know that he has always been assiduous in consulting his constituents before deciding how to vote on difficult and problematic issues.

Michael Connarty: I know that passions ran high, and I voted with the Government. However, does my right hon. Friend regret calling an hon. Member a ne'er-do-well on the radio this morning? It is not an appropriate term to use to describe a fellow Member of the House of any party.

Charles Clarke: You will need to advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether or not the phrase "ne'er-do-well" is a parliamentary expression. I am genuinely not sure, so I have to be careful about using it or not using it. It is true that I used the phrase outside the House about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). To be frank, I do not regret using it. There was a conspiracy, in which he was engaged with the Opposition Front Bench, which I thought it appropriate to draw to the attention of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether I can help the right hon. Gentleman? Expressions used outside the House do not fall within the rules of order and seemly language within the House. However, if some of those words are brought into the debate, there is a danger that one might get into the realms of immoderate language.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly shall not bring any other such words into the debate. I was seeking to respond as honestly as I could to the question.

Dominic Grieve: May I take the Home Secretary back to another point, away from such contentious issues? He said that the annual renewal clause, which was moved by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and which I supported, will have to be recast in the other place because it was incomplete. I have no objection to that, but why did the Government not move their own renewal clause, thus obliging the hon. Gentleman to move his? Was that in a fit of pique? I fail to understand why that was not done yesterday, when the provision was on the amendment paper?

Charles Clarke: Sometimes failure to understand is the hon. Gentleman's characteristic. As I sought to explain in the House yesterday, the Government's amendment for 90 days included a sunset clause for a clear reason. It was that there should be an opportunity for the House to reconsider the situation after a year's application of the legislation, so that the concerns that had been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House could be assessed and considered by the House after a year.
	The sunset clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North moved was of a different character. It referred, for example, to annual renewal. Therefore, we decided not to oppose my hon. Friend's amendment but we, the Government, did not move it. I can confirm that the redraft that we will introduce in another place will accept in all respects the intention behind his proposals. I gave him the commitment privately yesterday that I reassert across the Floor of the House that I will consult him in drawing up the exact wording of what we propose. He can then satisfy himself that we are operating in the spirit of what the House agreed yesterday. There is no intention on my part to go past that.

Kenneth Clarke: I realise that the Home Secretary had no opportunity of warning the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that he was going to refer to him because he was invited to reflect on comments that he made this morning. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not welcome my leaping to his defence. Will the Home Secretary reflect upon the rather vindictive spirit in which he referred to the hon. and learned Gentleman because he had been hostile to parts of the Bill? I listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman myself quite frequently and do not doubt the sincerity of his views. I regard it as absurd to suggest that he is in some way sympathetic to terrorism. I have to confess that I agreed with quite a lot of what he said. Is the Home Secretary prepared to modify the views that he expresses for some reason about one of his critics?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps enough has been said from either side of the House on the subject of personality. Perhaps we should get on with the substance of the debate.

Lynne Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was not only my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) who was spoken of in such terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was also mentioned. There was the implication that other Members had a frivolous attitude towards terrorism. I think that the Home Secretary should withdraw those comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard no unparliamentary language in this debate. What I have said, and will say again, is that I think that we are getting into dangerous ground and getting into the use of immoderate language if we dwell on personality. I think that enough has been said now. We should draw a line under that and move on with the substance of the debate.

Charles Clarke: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will operate accordingly.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend was talking about the sunset clause. If in a year's time we choose not to renew, we will go back from 28 days to 14. Many of my constituents who have been in touch with me today and who have been speaking on BBC Radio Wales and elsewhere want Parliament to consider an extension in a year's time, if the police still believe that that is necessary and if the circumstances in the intervening time suggest that it should be done. Will my right hon. Friend look at that?

Charles Clarke: I am certain that my hon. Friend is accurately reflecting the views of his constituents who have been in touch with him. It is always open to the Government to bring back further proposals if we wish to do so. I will shortly make a comment about that process. It is important to get all our terrorism legislation on to a very firm, secure and permanent basis.
	I shall turn to an issue that was raised briefly near the end of our proceedings yesterday, which is the definition of terrorism. I know that several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), have concerns about that. Even though the Government are not yet convinced that a more satisfactory definition is easily available, we recognise the level of concern about the issue among Members on both sides of the House. I know that the House will be keen to have a further opportunity to consider the definition of terrorism. Accordingly, the Government have invited the independent reviewer of our terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to carry out a review of the definition of terrorism. I do not think that anyone could cast doubt on his independence or his experience in these matters. I am sure that he will want to take account of the current initiatives in the European Union and the United Nations. As the House may be aware, the UN comprehensive convention on terrorism is grappling with just these issues. I am sure that he will also want to take account of the views that have been expressed in the debates that we have had on the issue in the context of the Bill.
	Lord Carlile has said that, in performing his task, he will want to see contributions and views, including consultation with people in the House who can make a relevant contribution. I have asked him to complete this work within a year of commencement of the Act. I will lay his report before Parliament. Clearly I cannot predict at this stage what the outcome his deliberations may be, but I can say that we shall provide Parliament with an opportunity to debate and take a view on his conclusions. If consensus is achieved on a change to the existing definition, we would commit to bringing forward that change as soon as parliamentary time would allow.
	Lord Carlile is also reviewing the operation of the control order regime that we established under the Terrorism Act 2005. He will be reporting on that.
	More generally, I am extremely keen to see whether we can find some means of getting the legislation to combat terrorism in Parliament on to a secure and stable basis rather than having a series of emergency arrangements. As the Opposition parties know, we considered in this Parliament trying to bring together the Northern Ireland terrorist legislation that the House is considering in parallel with the legislation that is before us. For a series of reasons about the time of expiry of existing legislation we decided we would not do that. In general—I am not making any proposal at this stage—I am keen to get to a state of affairs where we arrive at a stable and fixed position that is the will of Parliament across the entire range of the legislation. That is the approach that I will follow. Lord Carlile is particularly important in his looking at these issues to try to move into that sort of process. In that context, I would listen to the proposals being made and take them more generally.

Dominic Grieve: If that is the course that the Government intend to adopt, we will help and co-operate with the Government in trying to achieve it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware from previous conversations that we have had that we can certainly see the desirability of achieving a framework of legislation rather than having a series of bits and pieces. If we can be of assistance in that process, we shall take that approach.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

David Heath: I welcome what the Home Secretary has just said. As he correctly says, there was disquiet in all parts of the House about having a valid definition of terrorism. I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Carlile will do a good job. I wonder whether he will have access also to the considerations of the Law Commission, which might be of value.
	I suggest to the Home Secretary that he might review another aspect of this legislation that has caused concern, which is the legal context of post-charge questioning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) said, there is some doubt about what exactly can be done post-charge and what cannot, and to what extent it can be mitigated by changes to PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Charles Clarke: I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's second point. On his first point, I am grateful for his party's general support of this approach. It is always difficult debating with Liberal Democrats, but I look forward to a proper engagement in a serious way with the individuals concerned.

Clive Betts: I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has tried to listen to many different and conflicting views, particularly from Labour Members, throughout the process of consideration. He knows that my concerns have always been about the glorification clause, the definition of terrorism and the fact that many people might feel themselves criminalised for supporting what they see as genuine liberation struggles throughout the world. Can he give me an assurance—I welcome his reference to Lord Carlile—that Lord Carlile's report, whatever it says, will come back to the House for debate and decision as part of the process?

Charles Clarke: I have given that assurance and I am happy to repeat it. It is obviously important that such reports are matters that inform debate on the law, and that is precisely what is intended.

David Kidney: To return to my right hon. Friend's exchange with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), in what way has my right hon. Friend dealt with post-charge questioning? Now that the maximum period of detention can be only 28 days, what is the Government's view on allowing the police to question people after charge and adjusting the law relating to bail to allow that to happen? In my opinion, more damage could be done to our judicial system, and in respect of the propaganda point, by going down that route than by sticking with the 90 days that we could have had.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend, with his experience, puts his finger precisely on the issue that we are considering. There are attractions in that route, as I have indicated. There are also some significant wider implications for the way in which the legal system, and particularly the bail system, operates, that we would need to consider extremely seriously before taking that course of action. However, I can confirm that we are considering the matter. It is right to do so, but as with every legal reform of this type, and many of the issues that we have discussed, a reform that seems simple in one neck of the woods can become very complicated in other respects.

John Bercow: As one who jousted with the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety on the definition of terrorism, and who expressed a real concern about the plight of people fighting for freedom in thoroughly unfree and, in some cases, bestial environments, I consider this an extremely positive development. The review by Lord Carlile will be warmly welcomed, and I would not want the Home Secretary to think that it was not appreciated. It is, and it is the right way forward.

Charles Clarke: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's personal commitment. One of the exciting revelations for me through the entire debate has been the transformation of a number of Conservatives into freedom fighters throughout the world, which is genuinely entertaining to some of us who have been involved in these matters in various ways over time.

Dominic Grieve: May I take the Home Secretary back to post-charge questioning? I appreciate that there may be some difficult practical issues, but if he gets advice, I am sure he will find that the principle of post-charge questioning does not pose any great theoretical difficulty. It may be a change to our general criminal law that could properly be introduced, if there are adequate safeguards. I urge him not to disregard this. The police have consistently said that it is a problematic area in terrorist cases. If we are responding to a problem identified by the police, we should do so positively where we can, especially where it appears to be wholly compatible with the maintenance of the rights of a suspect.

Charles Clarke: I am overwhelmingly delighted that those on the Opposition Front Bench are listening to the advice of the police on these matters. I wish that that would happen more generally in addressing the issues that we have to face. On the particular point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I said and I say again that there is a case for that, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, there are serious implications more widely and those need to be properly considered. We are engaged in that consideration.

Mary Creagh: Is my right hon. Friend aware of paragraph 60 of Lord Carlile's report, where he refers to the current situation for interviewing terrorist suspects and states:
	"Those arrested in groups share the same solicitors, usually drawn from a narrow circle of firms with special expertise and experience in terrorist crime . . . Those solicitors are generally very professional, extremely skilled and analytical"?
	However, he goes on to say:
	"the reality is that most suspects exercise their right of silence in interview".
	What difference does my right hon. Friend think the Bill will make in that regard? Does he think that people will continue to exercise their right of silence, or that there will be a difference?

Charles Clarke: The purpose is to gather evidence, rather than to change that aspect of the situation, but my hon. Friend is right. One aspect of that report that concerns me is the small number of practices that deal with such cases, which creates massive delays in the legal process, quite properly at present. That is a matter of genuine concern.

Lynne Jones: On post-charge questioning, my understanding, which arises from a briefing from one of the lawyers mentioned, Gareth Peirce, is that post-charge questioning was always possible and is possible, provided that significant new evidence arises. Is that not the case?

Charles Clarke: I am not a lawyer, but one thing I have learned in this job is not necessarily to accept the advice of Gareth Peirce on anything.

Peter Bone: During the long debates that we have had, the Home Secretary referred a number of times to a small number of people who will be detained for more than 14 days without charge. Outside this place, "a small number" has been interpreted as being fewer than five, fewer than 12 or fewer than 20. Can he give us an idea of what he has in mind as a small number? If it is greatly different in practice, what will the Government do about that?

Charles Clarke: All the numbers that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are small numbers. I can tell him some large numbers, if he is interested—a googol, for example.

John Bercow: That only broadens the category, instead of narrowing it.

Charles Clarke: Indeed. We are talking about a small number, but by definition we cannot be precise about it because by definition we do not know which terrorist conspiracies we will be able to stop and put through that process or not. But we are talking about a small number, and that stands.

Peter Bottomley: I am sure Gareth Peirce's shoulders are broad enough to take any praise or other comments that the Home Secretary wants to make. Can he tell the House whether he read her article in The Guardian yesterday and whether the interviewing conditions at Paddington Green are as she stated?

Charles Clarke: No, I did not, but again, I am delighted that the readership of The Guardian now encompasses large numbers of Opposition Members. That is a major development. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) says from a sedentary position that she can read. I am delighted that in her case that is true. I notice that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) claims with pride to write for The Guardian. So he should claim with pride. I note that he opposed the Bill on Second Reading. I hope he will support it today. We shall see.

Chris Mullin: There is a serious issue here. Will the Home Secretary look at the interviewing conditions at Paddington? If he is interested in expediting the process and making maximum use of the 28 days available, there are several changes that could be made.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend has a good point. There are many serious issues relating to the procedures and processes, so yes, I will consider the matter.

Dominic Grieve: I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would make a statement. There will be occasions when detention goes beyond 14 days. Will detentions still take place at Paddington Green? Will people be moved to Belmarsh? What will happen in practice? Will there be a blurring between what is effectively police detention, pre-charge, and people being detained in an ordinary prison environment?

Charles Clarke: I have nothing to add today to what I have said on the matter throughout. That is the situation.
	No hon. Member can seriously question the fact that the United Kingdom and many other countries, as we so tragically saw in Jordan yesterday, face a very serious and, in our history, unique threat from terrorism. We face foes who seek to destroy our way of life and everything we stand for. They are happy to sacrifice their own lives in pursuit of that aim and they have no qualms about how many innocent lives they take. I do not pretend that legislation is the only solution to such a threat, but it is very important that we have the most effective legislation at our disposal. The Bill will be another important weapon in our armoury in fighting terrorism, and we need to get it on to the statute book as soon as possible. I hope therefore that colleagues from all sides of the House will unite to give the Bill a Third Reading and to send it to another place.

Dominic Grieve: The Bill as it now stands merits the continuing support of the official Opposition and will have it. In the unlikely event of the House being divided this afternoon on Third Reading, we will support the Government. I am pleased that the circumstances that have arisen in the House, both in Committee and on Report, have enabled us to do so. It is greatly to the credit of Parliament as a whole that the Bill has been sufficiently improved so that the consensus that the Home Secretary sought has been achieved, even if he might have wanted somewhat different details in the Bill from those that are in fact present. We will give the Bill our support and wish it fair passage through the other place.
	I hope the Home Secretary will forgive me if I examine some of the details. I had to disagree slightly with him on one aspect. It is true that we have had a great deal of time to debate the detail of the Bill, but we have not had—I do not entirely blame the right hon. Gentleman—sufficient time, particularly yesterday, to decide whether we wanted to make changes to the Bill in certain areas, following that scrutiny. There are issues relating, for example, to whether a defence should be available to somebody who is arrested for having been present at a terrorist training camp. The House has not had an opportunity to decide whether a proper defence should be allowed and, if so, how it should be worded. That will have to be considered in another place.
	We have also failed to resolve whether there should be a defence for the dissemination of terrorist publications. That has been of great concern to academics and librarians because, as the Bill stands, if one hands out an al-Qaeda manuscript to students so that they can write an essay on it at a university, one commits a serious offence. Only the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions will prevent prosecution. That is unsatisfactory. It is not sufficiently unsatisfactory to make us abstain or vote against the Bill, but it must be tidied up in another place.
	We have great problems with clause 1 that have not been resolved at all. Glorification remains a concept in the clause and it essentially muddies the provision's clarity. I cannot believe that there is no better formulation, which meets the Government's need to criminalise indirect incitement without introducing to our national law a concept that has previously been alien to it and which is so opaque and woolly that we fear that it risks creating injustice. I hope that perhaps lawyers—it is a legal issue—can tackle that in another place and devise a better response.

Julian Lewis: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon for not being a regular attender at earlier stages of the proceedings. Has sedition been considered in the context of the problem of glorification? That already covers in law the sort of anxieties that the Government rightly have—we would like to support the Government in resolving them—without the side effects about which my hon. Friend is rightly worried.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. One of the curiosities of the Bill is that, in almost all cases, it is at least arguable that offences similar to those that we are creating already exist. There are some exceptions, especially mere attendance at terrorist training camps abroad and aspects of terrorist training. My hon. Friend is right that the offence of sedition already exists. One of the extraordinary aspects of clause 1 is that nobody has yet been prosecuted for the sorts of utterances that it criminalises, yet in the past few years many such utterances have been made and existing law is available to deal with them. The Government have never provided an explanation for that. I have therefore inferred that they take the view that such prosecutions would perhaps cause more harm than good. That poses the question of why clause 1 is being promoted with so much gusto.
	Bringing anti-terrorist legislation together in one Bill may have something to commend it. The problem is that clause 1 as it is currently worded remains deeply unsatisfactory. We discussed and debated yesterday the   problem of whether indirect incitement can be caused intentionally, recklessly or negligently. The Government have amended the Bill and it now reads slightly better, but it is remarkable that they have adopted a test for recklessness that the House of Lords described last year as no longer sustainable because it risked creating injustice.
	I have serious doubts about whether the clause will last long in that form when it is scrutinised in another place, where, apart from anything else, one or two former Law Lords may be present who will point out the intellectual problem that it poses. The word "reckless" is incompatible with the way in which the Government have qualified it in the provision. It will create injustice and lead to people being criminalised who should not be. I hope that that will be altered when the Bill is considered in another place. I also hope that the glorification provisions will be amended or removed.
	There are two major problems in the Bill and we have touched on both. The first is the period of detention and the second is the definition of terrorism. The definition of terrorism colours the consideration of the Bill. I acknowledge that the Government have a problem. We have little difficulty in deciding what constitutes terrorism if it takes place in this country, but much more difficulty when we try to apply the definition abroad, especially in countries that may be governed by tyrannies. It is unfortunate that we have been unable to resolve that problem satisfactorily.
	I am grateful to the Home Secretary for explaining to the House that Lord Carlile will review the matter. However, the Bill is likely to reach the statute book some time before Lord Carlile reports. In the intervening period, all we can do is hope that those who are accused of committing an offence abroad do not come through our court system. If that happens, we will face serious difficulties. Lord Carlile's review, which I welcome, does not mean that Members of the other place should be fettered and prevented from considering whether the Bill can be improved in the meantime. Lord Carlile can always improve matters further later.
	The definition of terrorism is profoundly unsatisfactory; we have not succeeded in tackling that. I disagree with the Home Secretary's view that we had enough time. We did not reach those clauses yesterday—it is as simple as that. The problem impinges not only on the definition but on proscription of organisations for glorifying terrorism abroad and, indeed, every other aspect of the Bill. The Government have offered some improvements by providing that one or two clauses do not apply extra-territorially.
	The problem however remains that we are creating an over-arching structure, which, if it were applied logically, could criminalise all sorts of people in a way that Parliament never intended. It is a fundamental flaw in the Bill. I hope that Lord Carlile can solve the problem, but in the meantime the House and the other place cannot abdicate our responsibility for trying to improve the measure.
	I do not want to take up too much of the House's time—after all, we have had plenty of debate. Let me deal with the key issue of the period of detention. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's speech and I regret the tone of his remarks on that. When the police approached the Government in the summer, they presented a series of documents. I have seen them, the Home Secretary has seen them and I daresay that, by now, every hon. Member has seen them. Although they raised a clear concern about whether 14 days was sufficient time pre-charge to carry out investigations, they never explained anywhere why 90 days was the appropriate period to which detention should be extended. Nothing in the documents explained that and nothing since has provided a justification for that figure.
	What is the House to do in such circumstances when faced with a request from the police for a change, and the need to protect the liberty of the subject, which is one of the fundamental reasons for our existence? I say to the Home Secretary kindly that the outcome of 28 days, which some hon. Members would argue was too long, represents a reasoned and reasonable assessment of, and a sensible response to, the information that was placed before us. To accuse people of opportunism or conspiracy demeans the Home Secretary and suggests that the Government are woefully out of touch with what this place is supposed to try to achieve. Speaking of opportunism, if we had wanted to be opportunistic in the face of the Government's propaganda barrage, the solution would have been to say that the period should be 500 days, and to appeal to the most frightened or base sentiments in the country. It is greatly to the House's credit that it did not respond in that way.

Charles Clarke: The political editor of The Times wrote this morning that, had I come forward with a proposal for a period between 28 and 90 days—60 days, for example—the Conservative Front Bench would have gone for it. I have said that that is not the case, because the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) had said that there were no circumstances in which his Front Bench would go beyond 28 days. Am I right, or is the political editor of The Times right?

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary will recall that, when we met, I picked my words with great care. I said that I took the view that 28 days was the outer limit of what was acceptable. If he had then come back to me and said that he had some other variant to offer, I would have had to consider it, as would all hon. Members. If he had come back and said, "We think 28 days is too short, but we have decided that 30 days is the right period", it would have been extraordinary if the House had not given serious thought to what he was saying.
	The Home Secretary said that he was going to come back with an alternative, which we would have had to consider in debate. I do not know what happened—well, I have an idea of what happened next. I think that he was prevented from doing that because the Government, greatly to their discredit, took the view that it would be better to adopt a populist stance, to browbeat MPs and encourage newspapers such as The Sun to describe them as traitors if they did not sign up to the Government's agenda, to wheel in senior police officers to behave in such a way as is incompatible with their position as Crown servants, and to tend to their politicisation in a way that is massively undesirable and which, I regret to say to the Home Secretary, we have also seen in respect of other parts of the civil service on other occasions. All those things were done so that the Government could have their way over the figure of 90 days which, as the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) so tellingly highlighted, has never had proper justification.
	I believe that the House acted correctly in wanting to protect people, and in wanting to protect freedom. A balance needs to be struck between those two things, as I am sure the Home Secretary would concede. After all, if we did not have such a balance, we would sanction indefinite detention before charge, and I would not accuse even the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister of wanting to do that.

Mary Creagh: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that Lord Carlile's report states that
	"there have been situations in which significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts have gone unprosecuted as a result of the time limitation placed on the control authorities following arrest. This is not in the public interest, in which the prosecution of terrorist crime is of great importance."
	To return to the point that the hon. Gentleman made to the Home Secretary, Lord Carlile's own view is that the three-month period is
	"a reasonable maximum in all the circumstances".
	Those are his words, not mine. He goes on to say that
	"more than three months would certainly be unacceptably draconian",
	but recommends that the proposal for that maximum should be regarded as
	"a practical and sensible option, all other things being equal".
	Why is Lord Carlile's Liberal Democrat view wrong, and why is the hon. Gentleman's view correct?

David Heath: He was referring to a process of judicial investigation—read the report.

Dominic Grieve: The sedentary intervention by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is correct. Lord Carlile was talking in his report about setting up a rather different system, almost one of investigative justice. Furthermore, I am bound to make the point again to the Home Secretary, as it was highlighted by other hon. Members yesterday, that Lord Carlile may have had access to information to which the House was not privy. That must undoubtedly have coloured the way in which we approached this debate. Clearly, the House has to respond to the information that it receives. In fact, no justification was ever provided by the police for why they wanted 90 days as opposed to any other period. The Government adopted 90 days as their mantra on the back of a press release and two case studies, neither of which sustained the 90-day thesis.

Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend is making a very good case, and he is doing so very moderately. Does he agree that there are occasions on which Ministers write to all Members of Parliament to point out that a particular course is being taken, and to urge us to support it? Would it not have been the best possible course of action in this case to have written to all Members and made a coherent case which we could have contemplated in the privacy of our own offices, so that we could come to a sensible decision?

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is a problem here, and the Bill has suffered as a result of it. Somehow, the ordinary processes of Government—including the way in which decisions are taken—seem, particularly in respect of this legislation, to have been bypassed. Something strange has happened. Decision making now seems to be done informally, and those decisions, once articulated publicly, are no longer capable of being subjected to proper scrutiny because that would be seen as an attack on the Government's standing. So it has become much harder to have a debate, and the possibility of making mistakes becomes greater on all sides.

Chris Mullin: The hon. Gentleman mentioned The Sun newspaper a moment ago. Did he notice that the victim of the July bombings whose bloodied image was used on Tuesday's front page in an attempt to intimidate us into voting in a particular way has said today that he was utterly opposed to a 90-day detention period, and that he resents the way in which his views have been misused? Presumably he must be taken to know a thing or two about terrorism.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I did note that. I thought that the tone and content of those two articles were astonishing, on both days. It was a form of intimidation, sanctioned by the Government. They certainly did not discourage it. They encouraged it; it seemed to be part of a concerted campaign of abuse, and I very much regret that. We will not get sensible legislation if that is the level at which debate is conducted. All I can say is that I am delighted to be a Member of a House that has withstood the pressures that we came under in that respect.

Peter Bottomley: My total was two sensible responses from readers of The Sun, and two that even The Sun would regard as not very sensible. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is likely that The Sun's tactic led to a greater number of people helping Parliament to change the Government's proposal, and that if more campaigns of that nature were mounted in the future, that might happen more often?

Patrick Cormack: It was The Sun what lost it.

Dominic Grieve: I think that my hon. Friends may well be right. I detected a stiffening of resolve in the face of the strength of the onslaught directed towards us.

John Bercow: I think that it was the late Enoch Powell who said that politicians complaining about the media were like sailors complaining about the sea. It is a largely pointless and unproductive exercise. May I put it to my hon. Friend that, if we were to be intimidated by the very down-market level of abuse that has been forthcoming from some newspapers, we really would not be worthy of the positions that we hold as Members of Parliament? In regard to the comments made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh)—who wins the gold challenge cup for Blairite loyalism in all circumstances—I must point out that the observations of Lord Carlile were the expression of an opinion. That was his personal judgment, but it was not evidence based. We need to see the evidence on which the argument for 90 days was based, but it has not been forthcoming.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to see the evidence in order to make a judgment. We also need to hear an explanation of the arguments. The oddity of the basis on which the Government decided on three months as their period of pre-charge detention is that they were offered certain material that suggested that there had been instances in which 14 days might not be an appropriate maximum, but there was absolutely nothing to explain why the maximum had to be 90 days, as opposed to any other figure.
	This was reinforced during our debate by the fact that, before he was restrained by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary appeared very fairly to indicate that he accepted that the 90-day period was not set in stone, and that he knew that there were arguments that the period could be shorter. And yet suddenly all those arguments flew out of the window. Where the Home Secretary had been conciliatory, reasonable, and apparently willing to engage in debate and discussion, suddenly the shutters came down and war was declared. If, in the Government's view, the outcome on the duration is unsatisfactory, it is entirely the Government's fault. They bear entire responsibility for the way in which they handled the matter and treated Parliament in the process.

Charles Clarke: On the conduct of the hon. Gentleman, he should acknowledge to the House that he decided and said clearly, publicly and directly to me on Monday morning, in my office and then afterwards to the media, that 28 days was at the outer limit of what the Conservatives might accept. He said that there was a debate between 14 days and 28 days, and was essentially saying that if we negotiated within that range, he might go to 28 days, but that was it. That is what he said. As far as consensus and the Opposition were concerned, that is when the shutters came down.

Dominic Grieve: It is quite right that I said that 28 days was at the outer limit of what I considered to be acceptable, and that is a view that many Members of the House would hold. Some Members of the House would hold that 14 days, under the existing terrorist legislation, is already a long time, and not something that we should celebrate—we might be forced to accept it reluctantly, but we certainly should not celebrate it. I also said to the media, and, I think, to the Home Secretary, as I remember, that that is our position, but we understand that the Home Secretary is coming up with other options and the ball is in the Government's court. Those were the very words that I used. The ball remained in the Government's court, because we never heard anything further from the Government about the matter.

Mary Creagh: The hon. Gentleman says that Lord Carlile's report was on something else, but I was referring to his report on the Bill, in which he discusses clause 22. He also describes his own inquiries and processes as an independent reviewer. He is the person whom the House has charged with reviewing the Terrorism Bill. Why is his opinion not important, and why does the hon. Gentleman think that he and his party are in a better position than the independent reviewer appointed by the Government to review the Bill? Do the Opposition somehow have a greater understanding of the police and the processes involved in the case? On the 90-day point, will he support a move to the investigative magistrate model, which is in place in other European countries? Does he not agree that if there is any chance of mass-casualty terrorism, certain people should not walk our streets?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Lady is not doing herself much credit, certainly on the final point. First, as far as an investigative magistrate system is concerned, the Government have at no stage suggested that that is the policy that they wish to adopt. I only point out that there is plenty of evidence to show that the system of investigating magistrates, which exists in some continental countries, is not free of difficulty, particularly in respect of miscarriages of justice, which she might do well to ponder.
	That said, I have never taken the view that our system is necessarily perfect, but it does provide safeguards. As we have debated, there are ways in which, in my view, one can both detain people and carry out the investigation pre-charge—and post-charge, if we applied the rules correctly for post-charge questioning—none of which require investigating magistrates and prolonged periods of detention before someone is brought to trial, which is not a satisfactory state of affairs.
	As for Lord Carlile's opinion, we should consider it, and I certainly treat what he has to say with very considerable respect. He is knowledgeable and also has access to information to which Members of the House are not necessarily privy. All that adds to the strength of any of the recommendations or views that he expresses. They are views, however. If Lord Carlile simply gives a view on 90 days without the police providing an explanation as to why that is the period required, we are here to apply our independent judgment, not just to say that because some expert or anyone else has pronounced on the subject we should follow that slavishly.
	There was an interesting moment in yesterday's debate, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) will recollect, in which two members of the Intelligence and Security Committee who had both seen similar documents came to very different conclusions as to their content. I respect both those Members. I must face the fact, however, that that highlights that we should not suspend our independent judgment just because someone else says that we should do something. Yet the way the Government treated the House was such that it was our obligation to do so. The more the Home Secretary told me that it was my obligation to do so, the more reluctant I was, because I was elected above everything else to defend people's freedoms. I do not intend to abdicate that duty to Lord Carlile or anyone else.
	We are happy that we are in a position to support the Bill, and will do so if the House divides. We believe that the Bill is still capable of being approved. As an official Opposition, we can only express our thanks to those on both sides of the House who have made it possible to turn it into a document that merits and commands support.

Bill Etherington: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak today, because unfortunately I was not able to be present on the two previous days on which this matter was discussed, as I have been away on Council of Europe and Western European Union business.
	I listened carefully on Second Reading to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I thought that he made a pretty fair case for allowing the Bill to continue, and making any alterations or amendments at subsequent stages. I respected that because, initially, I was going to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. My one concern throughout was the 90-day clause. I am extremely grateful to and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on at least making a less draconian measure by obtaining a 28-day clause. Some of us in the House, who might well be in a minority, do not think that a good case has been put forward to justify any extension from 14 days. I have heard people saying consistently that evidence has not been put forward to justify 90 days. If evidence has not been put forward to justify 90 days, it has not been put forward to extend from 14 days. In those terms, nothing concrete was laid down.
	Also on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) mentioned what had happened in years gone by when the police had misused anti-terrorist legislation. Like him, I am pleased to say that there has been a tremendous improvement in that area—there must have been, because I get precious few complaints about anyone being wrongly detained by the police. A long time ago, however, police in the north-east committed two of the worse abuses of anti-terrorism legislation that it was possible to see. I do not need to remind Members that, as recently as the Labour party conference, it was reported that a persistent heckler had been interviewed by the police under anti-terrorist legislation. We therefore still need to be very careful when we extend any powers without proper countermanding and modifying measures.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that he did not think a case had been made so far for any extension of the detention period. I should point out to him that many of us voted for the "28 days" amendment only because we knew that if it were not passed, the original three-month detention would remain in the Bill. We had to make a tactical judgment.

Bill Etherington: It is always a great pleasure to accept a correction from such a talented politician. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: that is why I referred specifically to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. I too am very pleased that the detention period will be 28 days rather than 90—for it is fairly obvious that the Bill will be passed today, although I shall vote against it.
	Let me now refer to a couple of issues that are near and dear to me. I am no less concerned than any other Member about the need to wipe out terrorism. I was as horrified as anyone by the happenings of 7 July, which will live with me for the rest of my life. I am also conscious of what was said some time ago by Sir John Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I have great respect for Sir John Stevens, with whom I had dealings when he was in the north-east. He was right to say that no matter what was done and no matter how hard people tried, there would be times when certain acts of terrorism could not be prevented, but that we were duty-bound nevertheless to make every effort to minimise it.
	Will the Bill lead to any cessation of terrorist activity? I hope so, but I have my doubts. I am not aware that any of the four bombers of 7 July were on a suspect list. [Interruption.] I hear Members saying from sedentary positions that they were. I never heard that, but I may be wrong. I think that, in any event, we should consider another important factor: civil liberties.
	A couple of weeks ago, during a debate on identity cards, I expressed my increasing concern about the gradual but unremitting reduction of civil liberties in this country. I was not elected to be part of a regime that would curtail civil liberties, unless it could be shown beyond doubt that such action would benefit society. I still have those doubts. What happened to Magna Carta? What about habeas corpus?
	The Home Secretary says that he will not accept the term "internment". Someone who is incarcerated without trial is interned: there is no doubt about that. No one needs a PhD in English language to realise that that is internment. I shall be honest, and say that I find it extremely distasteful. If someone is interned on suspicion, surely that suspicion will be strong enough to be turned into a criminal charge in a very short time. It should not take 28 days. If we are going to lock people up, there should be some semblance of evidence that the suspicion is soundly based.
	I shall vote against the Bill. No doubt certain people will accuse me of being a bit of a luddite and not being concerned about terrorism. I have already explained my position, and can do no more than that. Let me, however, say one or two further things that need to be said.
	There has been a good deal of conjecture about pressure being put on Labour Members to support the Government over the 90-day period. I have never suffered any arm-twisting or intimidation. Never in 13 years has anyone from the Whips Office threatened me in any way. The Whips have tried to persuade me, as is their right, and have occasionally succeeded; but they would not have succeeded on this occasion. I have made my position plain, and it has all been very civilised.
	One person has telephoned me to say that the 90-day period seemed satisfactory. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who is not here now but who says that he has been inundated with calls supporting the 90 days, I have received only one, and have received only one letter over the past fortnight. We should be careful about so-called public opinion, however. The people who say that they are in favour of severe punishment and are not too bothered about the civil liberties of others are soon at our surgery doors if a family member or friend is suffering what they describe as an injustice.
	I want to say a few words about the Prime Minister—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister: let me make that very plain. I have received an appeal to the effect that someone should support the Prime Minister, because he is coming in for a lot of criticism. Let me say this. I respect the integrity of my right hon. Friend, and I will never doubt that he is a well-meaning and genuine person. That does not mean, however, that I must agree with all his politics. It does not mean that I have no right to question his judgment on this issue. My right hon. Friend has been convinced by the argument for 90 days; I have not.
	The proposal for 90 days emanates from the security services. I recall that the security services managed to convince my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that there was a danger of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That has since been proved to be untrue. I do not doubt that the security services do a very good job—I am sure that they do their best—but they do not always get it right; and, unlike us, they are not accountable to the electorate or the public. They just get on with their work.
	Ultimately we must make the decisions here, because ultimately it is we who will be held responsible for them. I still think that, even with the amendment to 28 days, this is a bad piece of legislation which we will regret. Although I hope that it may go some way towards combating terrorism, I have severe doubts.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. [Hon. Members: "North."] I am sorry; I meant the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), although it is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I have heard the hon. Member for Sunderland, North speak on two occasions in recent weeks, and on both occasions he has treated the House to a remarkably sound first-principles exposition.
	Today's debate offers the House an opportunity to take stock, to reflect on yesterday's events and the debates of the past few weeks, and to consider—in a more measured way than was possible yesterday—how we should proceed from here. It is unfortunate that the Home Secretary is not present, because I was going to say something nice about him. I have had substantial disagreements with him on this subject over the past few weeks, and I believe that he has made a number of mistakes—and that mistakes have been made for him, notably by the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, he responded to the immediate aftermath of yesterday's vote with a remarkable degree of personal dignity, for which I give him credit. I must qualify that by saying that he rather blew it today with some of his comments about certain of his hon. Friends.
	The Home Secretary also said that he found Liberal Democrats difficult to debate with. I considered that to be a remarkable piece of praise, for which I should thank him. I should have thought, though, that compared to debates with some of his own Back Benchers, debates with Liberal Democrats would be models of straightforward simplicity.
	The replacement of the 90-day period and the amendment to 28 days has removed a major barrier to our support for the Bill. It indeed gives me and my hon. Friends some reassurance that we can begin to work with this Bill. For that reason, I place on record the fact that we will not oppose the Bill on Third Reading today. If others choose to divide the House, we shall not be with them. We nevertheless view the legislation very much as work in progress. It is beyond doubt that there remains substantial scope for improvement. I want to take some time to highlight a few of the remaining areas of concern from the point of view of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
	On clause 1, it is important to reflect and acknowledge that we have come a very long way from the original views expressed by the Government and the Home Office earlier this summer. The continued inclusion of glorification within the clause, however, remains unsatisfactory, as does the formulation of recklessness, which needs to be fixed. Those matters will be dealt with again in the other place. The concerns of academics about many of the offences in part 1 have not had a proper or full airing. They will also have to be dealt with, sadly, in the other place. We also want to put on record the fact that we remain concerned about the lack of proper statutory defences in respect of clauses 6 and 8.
	Clause 17 deals with the commission of offences abroad and it is right to welcome the substantial amendment and restriction of the clause's scope that the Government put into the Bill yesterday. It is still far from a model of clarity, however, and it may help the House if I read out the amended provision in clause 17, which refers to
	"an offence under section 1 or 6 of this Act so far as it is committed in relation to any statement, instruction or training in relation to which that section has effect by reason of its relevance to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more Convention offences".
	The vagueness of the term "relevance to the commission" remains problematic and could eventually cause some difficulties. It would be an excellent point for our noble Friends to deal with.

Robert Smith: Is that not a classic example of where the Home Secretary was wrong to say that we had enough time to debate the Bill? Given that the House has for once improved a Bill in this place, it is a pity that the Government did not give us enough time to do the full job of improvement, so we now have to rely on the other place to do the detailed work.

Alistair Carmichael: Proceedings on this Bill have demonstrated that, if given the opportunity, this House can be trusted to do the job that it is here to do in holding the Executive to account and properly scrutinising legislation. The fact remains that the time allotted to us was inadequate for the job in hand. It worries me that we are sending the Bill to the other place with so many unresolved questions. As is the case with so many provisions in the Bill, clause 17 still suffers from the absence of a proper definition of what is meant by terrorism.
	I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement from the Dispatch Box today of a review that is to be carried out by my noble and learned Friend, Lord Carlile. I greatly look forward to participating with my hon. Friends and other Members in that review. Implicit in that offer, however, is the Government's acceptance that they have not got it right. Given that we have 12 months before we can revisit the provision, we seem to have legislation that will be firing on something less than all cylinders for the course of those months, so we should not be satisfied with that. In welcoming the review, I also say to hon. Members in this place and our noble Friends in the other place that they should not feel that this is the end of the story on the definition of terrorism. If we can come up with a better definition than the current one, it is still open to my noble and learned Friend to review it, if he feels it necessary.
	Clause 21 concerns the grounds of proscription and I can tell the Minister that we had an excellent debate in Committee, particularly in respect of the impact of the inclusion of glorification within the clause. It is a matter of substantial regret that we were not able to revisit that point yesterday on Report.
	Finally, I want to say a few words about clause 23. It is now apparent that 28 days is the settled will of the House and I believe that it will be included in the final form of the Bill. In our view, there remains scope for improvement and I remind the House of the terms of our amendment yesterday. I am uncomfortable with the idea that 28 days should be automatically available. Liberal Democrats would prefer to put some locks on the availability of extensions from 14 to 28 days. We would like that extension to be made available only where there was evidence to be obtained from abroad or where there was some issue awaiting a further outcome of an analysis of evidence or perhaps decryption. A judge should be required to be satisfied that no other terrorist charge can be brought. Given the terms of provisions relating to acts preparatory to terrorism, which will eventually be passed with the Bill, it raises the bar significantly. The judge should also be required to approve any further questioning that is to be carried out.

John Bercow: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for some check or constraint on the operation of the 28-day period, as agreed in the amendment. There are two reasons why that is important. First, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), many of us voted for the 28-day period only in order to prevent something worse that would otherwise have appeared in the Bill. Secondly, there is the simple principle that, in respect of the police and intelligence services as with any other organisation, work tends to expand to fill the time available.

Alistair Carmichael: That is a truth that we can understand and accept without any difficulty on both sides of the House.
	My other concern is much more fundamental: that the longer a person is held in custody, the greater the likelihood that eventually a court may see that any evidence obtained from that person will have been obtained under duress. Such evidence would then be inadmissible, leaving us with the prospect that, ultimately, the prosecution will be unsuccessful. In that case, either terrorists will go free or people who have had serious allegations placed against them may never have a proper opportunity to vindicate their name because they are seen to have been released on a so-called technicality.

Julian Lewis: Before the hon. Gentleman returns to the remainder of his list, will he also comment on what the shadow Attorney-General had to say about the uncertainty of the conditions in which these people will be detained? If they are detained in anything other than solitary confinement, is there not a risk—the longer they are detained—of radicalisation? On the other hand, if they are innocent, is there not a danger of them being brutalised by other prisoners merely on the suspicion that they might be guilty?

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman's point speaks for itself and I agree absolutely. As someone who used to earn his living in the criminal justice system—mostly as a defence solicitor, but for a number of years as a prosecutor—I have seen at first hand the conditions in police stations. In most cases, they are certainly not suitable for a lengthy detention, and the same is true of the conditions in prisons, particularly—dare I say it?—those in which remand prisoners are held. It is the ultimate irony that the conditions in which a person is held on remand are infinitely worse than those in which a person is held post-conviction.
	We Liberal Democrats will be interested in exploring with Ministers how we can monitor the number of cases that may be dealt with in the extended detention period. I suggest in the broadest possible terms that we could have some mechanism for triggering a report to Parliament on the operation of this part of the Bill once a certain number of detentions has taken place. That would go some way towards addressing the concerns that were expressed earlier about what constituted a small number of cases. We, as parliamentarians, are duty bound to keep the closest possible eye on that issue.

David Kidney: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the Liberal Democrat proposal on questioning after charge, is he saying that whatever the total length of detention may be, whenever a charge is laid there would never be questioning beyond 28 days after arrest?

Alistair Carmichael: No, and I do not see why the hon. Gentleman could even think that.

David Kidney: I pursue this point because of what the hon. Gentleman said about the idea that the longer a person is detained, the less reliability can be given to anything said in interview. Let us consider the example of a suspect who has been detained for 28 days, and who is then charged with an offence unrelated to terrorism, such as fraudulent use of a credit card. I choose that example because Mr. Hayman cited such a case. As it stands, the police would grant bail or put before the court. If put before the court, the accused could apply for bail and the court would have the power to grant that. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there would be another change in the law to prevent such a person having the right to bail at all, or would the ability to question depend on whether the court held the person in custody?

Alistair Carmichael: No. On the question of lesser charges, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has simply misunderstood and is not misrepresenting my case. We have always said that it is a question of other terrorist charges, which is why I made specific reference to acts preparatory to terrorism. On the question of a person being held for a particular length of time, leading to a greater danger of evidence being obtained unfairly in the view, subsequently, of the trial judge, that is no barrier to questioning. However, the longer that a person is held, the more careful the police and the prosecution must be about the nature, extent, duration and circumstances of such questioning. The court will consider the circumstances in which the person has been held. [Interruption.] In England and Wales, all such matters can be dealt with through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) says from a sedentary position. What, therefore, is the hon. Gentleman's point about bail?

David Kidney: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that a person could not apply for bail because the police would need to keep them to ask them further questions after charging?

Alistair Carmichael: That question relates to cases where a charge other than a terrorist is charge is brought in the first instance. In Scotland, at least, it would be for the court to decide whether or not a person is admitted to bail. Such a question would be determined on the basis of the procurator fiscal bringing charges. I am not familiar with the concept of police bail, but I see no barrier to questioning taking place after someone has been admitted to bail. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows of examples to the contrary. I am mindful of the fact that I am skirting around a subject—English evidence and procedure—in which I am scantily qualified.

David Kidney: Surely the point is obvious. We are talking about a few cases of suspected terrorism. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that someone who is granted bail would hang around to be questioned, that is rather fanciful.

Alistair Carmichael: I am glad that we have finally got to the kernel of the issue. There is no question of bail being given when terrorism charges are brought. In any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, the nature of the offence is always a substantial factor, and in such cases bail is not given.

David Howarth: The test for remanding in custody instead of granting bail, taking the prosecution's case at its highest, is whether there is a substantial risk that the defendant would abscond, commit a further offence or interfere with witnesses. On the basis of that test, I cannot see how any terrorist suspect could be given bail.

Alistair Carmichael: We are now on safe territory that I understand. Exactly the same test is applied in Scotland, and I can see no such circumstances in which any court would grant bail. In the event that it did, it would almost certainly be followed by a swift and successful bail appeal by the Crown.

David Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way one last time?

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman can make his point later in the debate. I promise that if he says anything that interests me during his speech, I will intervene on him.

David Kidney: rose—

Alistair Carmichael: I have been quite generous to the hon. Gentleman, so I will not give way again.
	A number of matters outwith the scope of the Bill need to be addressed, such as the PACE code. We also have the right to ask why section 57 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has not yet been brought into force. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did point out to me last night, however, that the intelligence services commissioner's report of earlier this year makes it clear that section 57 has not been introduced yet because the extent and nature of encryption has not been as great as was envisaged when the Act was passed by this House. Members who have put great reliance on encryption would do well to consider that point.

David Heath: I am still puzzled by the question of the implementation of section 57 of the 2000 Act. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), assured me at the Dispatch Box during our deliberations in Committee that he would write to me to explain why the Government have not implemented it. It would have been useful to have had that response before Report, and certainly before Third Reading.

Alistair Carmichael: That is yet another of the defects in our procedures with which we have to contend. It is an unsatisfactory situation.
	I want to conclude by saying a few words about the nature of the debate in this House, and outside it, in the past few weeks. The debate in this Chamber has been of the highest possible quality. Contributions from Members in all parts of the House have been well motivated, sincere, well informed and passionate. That debate has done a great deal, notwithstanding some of the press comment today, to restore the standing of this House.
	The debate outside this House, however, has caused me some concern. The role played by the Association of Chief Police Officers has crossed lines that, frankly, should not have been crossed. I was going to say a great deal more about this issue that might have proved fairly controversial. However, I shall not say too much today, because the time for that debate is when the dust has settled and tempers have cooled. There is, however, a distinction to be drawn between briefing, which is quite appropriate for a body such as ACPO, and lobbying, which is not. ACPO clearly crossed that line, something with which the House must concern itself.
	The Bill leaves this House with much work still to be done. We see ourselves as involved in a process; we will play the fullest possible part in that. We hope that at the end of the process in the other place what we have is rather better than what we face today.

Michael Connarty: I rise to welcome the Bill, as amended. I did not vote for those amendments; I voted for the 90-day provision. Those who know me, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), know that I am not someone whom the Whips approach and that I have voted many times with my conscience and according to what I think is correct for my constituents. In this case, I had serious reservations. The Bill is amended as it is because the Government lost the argument many times in Committee. At that time they appeared to be conciliatory and to accept that even though, when a Government lose an argument, they may be able to press the vote and get their Members through the Lobby, they then have to reach a proper compromise. In some cases they did, and that is why I welcome the Bill, as amended.
	My hon. Friend raised the question of moving away from the 14-day provision. We got locked into thinking that we were giving the police the power to slam someone up for 90 days almost automatically, rather than the detention being seriously reviewed again and again. I regret that our law did not originally state that people could be held for only seven days before the case went to the High Court for proper review. I believe that holding for seven days anyone who might prove innocent would be traumatic for them and their family, for their personal relations and for their relationship with their community, whether or not that is a Muslim community. When we moved to 14 days, we moved beyond what was, without review, a reasonable step. The debate should have been about how many times one could go back and ask, at a review, for another seven days and about why that request should be granted each time.
	I was therefore much more interested in a number of issues on which the Government have made significant moves. I was not so concerned about the idea of time, but the debate became fixated on that idea. If we had been more skilful, we might have got a better amendment that would have allowed the reasonable renewal of detention for seven days, but within a very strict process, which I will mention later.
	The question of definition is still difficult, although we have moved a long way. I have discussed this at length with my constituency party and my constituents, some of whom went through experiences similar to those mentioned by my hon. Friend. I represent a large section of the mining community in West Lothian. On incitement, the people to whom I spoke said that they want people to be stopped from inciting. On encouragement, they want people to be stopped from encouraging.
	Acts of glorification have to be defined in a proper, fixed and recognised context. "Glorification" is such a vague term that lack of definition could lead not only to miscarriages of justice, but to a waste of time by the police and those involved in intelligence and research. That time should be focused on proper concerns—going to war in Iraq has not improved our ability to fight international terrorism and is a glaring example of our chasing the wrong enemy.
	I heard a number of Members refer in the debates in Committee and elsewhere to the Jenny Tonge test or the Cherie Blair test: whether glorification could be inferred from what someone has said. When I discussed that with people whom I regard as serious and intelligent, they laughed. What they wanted was a Mr. Hamza test, in which it would be clear whether someone was doing something that could incite or encourage terrorism. We were told that the powers available would not deal with such situations, and they wanted that dealt with before we got into what seemed like silly arguments about what people had said.
	I have often been to Palestine and seen the victims of what was clearly sniper shooting by the Israeli Government. I have seen the families of children killed—not in confrontations with soldiers, but by the mischance of being in the wrong place when soldiers decided to continue shooting. That leads one to understand why people cross the barrier of what is reasonable and commit acts against other innocents in anger and stupidity. That is not to condone those acts; indeed, one can completely deprecate them. I can see why Jenny Tonge might say what she did and why Cherie Blair might say what she did. That is not glorification of terrorism, and the fact that it was described in those terms was inappropriate and downgraded our discussions in the eyes of the public who followed what we were saying.

John Bercow: I respect the hon. Gentleman's principled opposition to the war in Iraq, but it is important in this debate to emphasise that opposition to some of the central tenets of the Bill is not confined to the anti-war lobby. There are many of us who felt strongly that the Government were justified in going to war in Iraq, and still feel that the Prime Minister was justified in the overall stance that he took, but who feel uncomfortable with, and unpersuaded by, the Government's case on these central tenets.

Michael Connarty: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect him greatly. He wanted to put that on the record and I am glad to have allowed him to do so, although I do not think that it added a great deal to the debate.
	The question of the review clause needs to be settled in a better way. Any review clause must be debated on the Floor of the House and carried by a vote of the House. Anything in a statutory instrument may be taken off the Floor or considered in a way that does not allow full debate on the Floor, and that would not be acceptable to those who are concerned about having the Bill at all. I hope that when we get the review clause in its final form, after the Bill has been through the other place and returned to this House, the Government will ensure that we have the right to a full debate on the Floor on a proper motion and that the provision is not slipped through. Prevention of terrorism legislation passed when we were not in government was discredited by the fact that, in the early stages, we did not have those debates.
	There was some to-ing and fro-ing about the word "reckless". It is a difficult word, but I first saw it in an amendment tabled by the Conservative Opposition in Committee. I do not know how one deals with that difficulty in legislation. If people do something innocently but recklessly, which part do we lean on? Do we judge their act innocent, so the police do not pursue them? Or do we judge it to be reckless and have the police pursue them, even though they may end up, days or weeks later, being deemed innocent but a little reckless? Holding them under the Bill would have a damaging effect on their life, their family and community and on the perception of them in the community, and it would also be damaging to the work of the police. I hope that we can have a provision that clarifies what we mean.
	If someone knowingly does something recklessly, such as driving a car and causing an accident, that is different from doing it unknowingly. I think of a recent case in Scotland in which someone thought that they were driving properly but were in fact driving recklessly. That case went to court and the individual was fined because he should have known that he was driving recklessly. We have to get the definition of "reckless" right.
	I return to the time provisions that the Bill now contains—28 days; four periods of seven days. That may prove inadequate. I know that people voted for that for all the right reasons. The problem is that the House focused on time rather than process.
	I was concerned about the definitions used in the Bill, especially in connection with the actions of people who wanted to encourage and support those fighting against oppression and state terror in other parts of the world. The Bill has still not got that quite right. For example, when I was a youth I went around sticking up posters for "Back from Hanoi" meetings. Representatives from the National Union of Mineworkers had gone to Vietnam to find out what was really going on, and on their return condemned what the Americans were doing to the people there. At the time, that was not a popular opinion.
	Would the Bill mean that I would end up in the slammer for sticking up posters, going to meetings and handing out leaflets that told of the American atrocities against the people of Vietnam? Theoretically, the Americans were our allies, and thank goodness that the Prime Minister of the time kept this country out of that terrible debacle. We have to get our approach right as we cannot discourage people—anywhere in the world, and even in this country—from standing up for the serious principles of human rights that have so often been abused.
	I return to the question of process. Sadly, the House originally settled on a 14-day detention period. Judicial review every seven days depends on the Bill containing the strictest definition of what merits continuation, but I believe it probable that opportunities will arise to abuse the system that is being proposed.That abuse will take the form of acts of omission, and I am worried that the police will think that, in order to keep a person in detention, they will have to prove only that they are pursuing a trail of evidence, regardless of its weakness. In contrast, I think that they should have to show that they are engaged in a serious and ongoing investigation of evidence that has not yet been analysed properly. The important point is that the evidence should exist: if it does not, and the police merely hope that they will find it after holding the person for another seven days, that will be insufficient reason for continuing that person's detention.
	The process has to be defined very clearly. In our discussions, we were told that such matters would be kept under review by a High Court judge and that the people in detention would be properly represented. However, I want to know in detail how transparent the process will be. Giving the people involved representation will be no good if they are told by the police that they are in possession of evidence that can be shown to the High Court judge but not to the defence representative, on the ground that it has security implications. I want the people accused under the Bill to have the right to due and proper process, but such an approach would render that process null and void.
	In addition, we must make sure that the police do not think that they can hold for 28 days anyone whom they pick up. They cannot be allowed to believe that the detention period will be automatic as long as they can show that they are pursuing an investigation.
	I voted for a period of 90 days because I wanted a reassurance that the proper process would be observed. The actual length of the detention period would not matter to me—or to my constituents, or those in my constituency party who hold me to account—as long as the security authorities were required to show that they were pursuing a trail of evidence. As long as they could do that, detention could be prolonged by successive periods of seven days. The arguments that we got locked into about 28, 90 or 14 days were less important than ensuring that a person arrested by the police on suspicion of taking part in terrorist activity was held to be innocent until enough evidence had been gathered to allow a charge to be brought. Adopting that approach would make sure that every review by the High Court judge would start from the assumption of the person's innocence, even though there were grounds for suspicion. At every review, the police would have to prove that extending detention for a further seven days was justified, and they could do that only by demonstrating in an obvious and transparent way that they were accumulating real evidence against the person involved.
	I hope that the Bill will return from the other place with the problems to do with definition, the maximum period of detention, glorification and the response to international terror all fixed. If that is the case, the Bill will be a good one. Whoever said that the people who voted for the strongest possible Bill consistent with the wishes of the public was on the money. It is possible that the House will benefit from the way that the Bill has been debated and we may feel that the process of deliberation has been wonderful. However, if it fails to do what it sets out to do—that is, prevent another atrocity such as happened here on 7/7, or on other occasions around the world—we will be held liable by the public.

Kenneth Clarke: I am sorry to begin my Third Reading speech by underlining the fact that I take very seriously the threat that terrorism poses to the citizens of this country. Much of the campaigning that is going on retains an undertone of suggestion that those who have resisted the more draconian elements of the Bill are complacent about terrorism or do not take it seriously, but that is certainly not my position.
	The Home Secretary was in a rather petulant mood today, for understandable reasons. For the past two weeks, he has tried to be the reasonable face of the Government, but I do not think that he did himself much justice when he started to suggest that some hon. Members are less opposed to terrorism than he is.
	I take the threat of terrorism extremely seriously. Over the past fortnight, I have taken as active a part as possible in discussions about the Bill because I think that terrorism is one of the most serious problems that will face this Government and their successors for years to come. The climate of the recent past proves beyond doubt that the citizens of this country face a grave threat of random terrorism, and will do so for a long time.
	It is not possible to guarantee complete protection, however dramatic the measures put in place. I have a dreadful feeling that more bombs will explode from time to time, with the concomitant political reaction. It therefore behoves us all to consider very seriously how we will tackle the problem. If we can, we should act on a consensual, cross-party basis to protect our population and minimise the terrorist threat.
	Many factors outside the Bill are involved. For example, how will we approach resolving the mounting conflict between the Muslim world and the rest of the world? How will we address the question of the relationships between this country's Muslim community and their fellow British citizens, and how can we make sure that we avoid producing growing numbers of alienated young men who can be radicalised and turned to fanatic activity?
	Those are important questions, but the key will be to get right the balance between, on the one hand, the force that we apply to security and the fierceness with which we crack down on those who propagate terrorism in this country with, on the other hand, our belief in personal liberty and individual freedom and our need to protect the values of our society that the terrorists want to threaten.
	When faced with a terrorist threat, it is worth asking what the terrorists' ambitions are. It is no good dismissing them all as mindless fanatics or brainless extremists, as some are very sophisticated and intelligent people indeed. One of the main aims of terrorists attacking a civilised society is to provoke an overreaction by that society's authorities. The best present for terrorists is to introduce repressive measures that help them politicise and mobilise the elements in the community with which they identify. Those people might then be persuaded that their sense of injustice and deprivation is so strong that it justifies extremism.
	I take the Bill and the terrorist threat very seriously, but the Government have totally mishandled the matter from the start. They have kept on suggesting that criticism of the more difficult measures is the result of complacency, in Parliament and elsewhere.
	In passing, I assure the House that I have not approached the Bill from a party-political or partisan basis. I was one of those who voted against it on Second Reading, and that was not the approach of my party. Many hon. Members have made their own judgments about the Bill and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington) was eloquent and graphic when he demonstrated how people have not merely followed the party line. If the Government need more reassurance, they have proposals forthcoming on education, health and welfare, where they might expect my support on their more well-judged measures. It is no good saying that all Conservative Members are opportunists and that the opponents of the Bill are motivated by ill will towards the Prime Minister or any such thing.
	My opposition to the legislation so far has been on the basis that I regard it as extremely ill considered. It does not add much, if anything, to our protections against the risk of terrorism. I rather think that it was motivated by a desperate desire to do something in response to the appalling events of July. At the time, the Government were seized with the feeling that they did not know what else to do. I cannot get rid of the feeling that, essentially, the Bill is gesture politics. I hope that we do not have more gesture politics if we have more terrorist outrages.
	The bombs in July were not caused by any gaps in our legislation. We have 200 pieces of anti-terrorist legislation already on the statute book. So far as I am aware, the bombs in July were not caused by the outpourings, however distasteful and unpleasant, of some bizarre, extreme preachers, encouraging people to do what they did. The reaction, at a time when the public were frightened as a result of the horrors on the underground and when the Government were in something of a political panic about how to react, was to suggest that tough legislation and a provision to deport mad mullahs from our territories would be the answer that a strong Government would implement to minimise the chances of that happening again. Since then, we have gone into more detail. Some measures in the Bill, such as offences about preparing and training for terrorism, might add something, but at its heart I still suspect that this is gesture politics, padded out with measures to make it look more convincing.
	It worries me that, time and again during our proceedings, the Bill has been driven forward with disparaging remarks about opponents in this House and elsewhere and with a disregard for those who are concerned about the rule of law, civil rights or individual liberty. I expect editorials in The Sun to talk about left-wing judges challenging this, but the present Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary have got into the habit of allowing their lips to curl when they describe lawyers, liberals and others who are sensitive about individual rights. That is a most unhealthy development. I am a lawyer and, I think, a liberal on a large number of matters. I was not a very liberal Home Secretary. I brought before the House the renewal of terrorist legislation, suspending provisions of the European convention on human rights. I was opposed by my shadow, the present Prime Minister, for going too far. I was a more liberal Home Secretary than any of my successors. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was a more liberal Home Secretary than any of his successors. The last truly liberal Home Secretary was Lord Hurd. Since then, we have been going down hill. I had hoped that the new Home Secretary might reverse the trend, but the pressures he is under now are not making it easy for him.
	The reasons why I remain against the legislation are, first, my suspicion that it is gesture politics and, secondly, because as we examined it in Committee and on Report, the frailty and thinness of most of its contents have become increasingly evident. My main reason, that it is gesture politics, has been touched on by others. It is difficult to see what almost all its provisions add to the present provisions of the criminal law. Incitements to violence by people preaching in mosques can be dealt with under the present law. It has been a decision of public policy not to prosecute some of the more self-publicising, wild preachers because a judgment has mistakenly been made that that would cause more trouble than it was worth. There is scarcely a new provision in the Bill that could not be covered by a prosecutor under some existing charge, if the evidence existed to proceed against someone engaged in terrorist activities. Therefore, it is ill-considered legislation, which has caused terrible trouble. We now shall see whether anything worth while can be produced from it when it goes to the House of Lords.

John Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend has just explained that one weakness of the Bill is that most of its provisions fail to add to what already exists on the statute book. Does he agree that a sign of the weakness in which the Government find themselves intellectually is that Ministers have taken refuge in arguing that opinion poll evidence shows that people support the Bill? Given that my right hon. and learned Friend and I are both staunch opponents of the death penalty, as are most Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, can he envisage circumstances in which Labour Members would seek to argue that opinions should be followed simply because it is public opinion? We have a responsibility to exercise our judgment.

Kenneth Clarke: Hon. Members on both sides have been resisting for many years the simplistic argument that the criminal law should be written in line with the opinion polls of the day. I can remember when the vast majority of the public would have supported hanging and flogging. Many police officers have expressed great disquiet over the years about the constraints on their powers of arrest, questioning and restraint, and they have pressed for more powers. Heaven forfend that we see the day when the criminal law, including the most essential provisions that bear on the liberty of the individual, are determined by focus groups or newspaper headlines and leaders. The arguments used by Ministers on occasion, both inside and outside the House, have strongly suggested that that is the approach that we should adopt.
	We have been told to consult our constituents on the issue. I live near the constituency of Sherwood and I was astonished to hear that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) has been showered with representations on the issue. I have received only two, one for and one against. I might ask my two correspondents what their feelings were based on and what they thought was lacking in the powers available to the police and the present period of detention of 14 days. I could ask them what had led them to the conclusion that 14 days, which was introduced only in January last year, was too short and that 90 days were necessary. I suspect that neither of my constituents, enlightened though they may have been by the opinions of The Sun, would have been aware of the present constraints, the basis for arrest and charge or the present state of the law. If they had been asked what the case for 90 days was, I would have been interested to see if they could have produced a response, because no Minister has yet been able to provide concrete argument to explain why 90 days is preferable to 14 days, except that I should ask my chief constable. That is what is at the heart of the legislation, and that is why the House has done a good job putting it in its present state.
	The only argument that has been introduced to justify the provisions in the Bill that extend the law—the extension to 90 days and the creation of the new offence of encouragement of terrorism, which are the two dramatic and draconian measures—is that they are needed to face the new threat of modern terrorism. We are told that we must now understand that what we have done in the past to waive our normal civil liberties to deal with extremist terrorism—mostly from Ireland—is overtaken by the modern terrorism, for which the rules of the game have changed. That, we are told, is why we need to toughen up particular provisions.
	I find that argument faintly preposterous. I do not like being fobbed off with the argument that I do not understand modern terrorism. Apparently, Irish terrorists were simpler folk and less sophisticated measures were necessary to deal with them. They were decent fellows, apparently, who did not do too much harm and gave a bit of warning. They did not pose the risk of mass murder that we now face from disaffected Islamic youth. Well, I do not believe that. It contradicts my recollection that it was always a mistake to underestimate the sophistication and cunning of the IRA. It knew exactly what it was doing. It went in for mass murder and, when it gave warnings, they were usually slightly misleading, so that the police could be blamed for the casualties that resulted. I do not see that modern terrorism has moved on very much when I recall the outrages in public houses in Birmingham, in which young people were blown up by weapons deliberately designed to cause mass injury in two underground bars. Both were, by repute, frequented by under-age drinkers, which is why they were chosen. I could describe many other similar outrages.

Mary Creagh: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, when we were dealing with the threat of IRA terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s, terrorists did not have mobile phones, the internet was in its infancy and in most cases the terrorists spoke the same language as us? There were none of the interpretation and translation issues that we find in the current threat.

Kenneth Clarke: I shall deal with some of those points. First, the mobile phone has proved a great aid to investigation of crime of all kinds. One can intercept mobile phone conversations much more easily than most other forms of communication. I do not understand why the Government adhere to the tradition in parts of the police and security services of not using intercept evidence. I support such use. Indeed, I have always thought resistance to it faintly preposterous; it is getting more preposterous as time goes by. In that sense, things are not moving in the direction that the Bill suggests.
	Of course, there is the argument that today's terrorists are more multilingual, but most of those who attacked us were British-born, spoke perfectly good English and were educated in this country. Certainly, the international links, which the IRA also had, involve a certain amount of multilingual activity, but it is not impossible to find interpreters. We do not have to wait three months to find someone who speaks Arabic. Perhaps if we improved our relationships with the Muslim community, we would receive a constantly ready supply of helpful Arabic speakers. I do not accept the argument about interpretation.
	Encryption is usually given as the main reason why things should now take longer because the codes to what is encrypted are refused. However, the weapons being used are not that high-tech. Computer technology is not normally required to design today's terrorist bomb. Reference has been made to communications and planning, but if the only man who knew the codes was dead, it would take someone months and months, unless they were lucky, to decrypt the material on a computer. The idea that the difficulties of modern computer technology justify giving the powers originally in the Bill is not acceptable.
	The changes in the situation are not that dramatic, but the Bill was introduced in the heat of the public reaction to terrible and dramatic events, as though that was something new. The importance of tackling such events is the same as ever, but the exploitation of emotion after the underground bombs should not allow us all to be persuaded that we face grave new threats that justify the erosion of our liberties.
	I am delighted to say that, due to the state to which the Bill has been brought by the House, our noble colleagues in the other place will have almost carte blanche to address it and to find what can be made sensible out of the improved but somewhat battered Bill that is about to receive its Third Reading. I invite them to have a go and rewrite large stretches of the measure with all vigour. There are some distinguished people in the upper House who will be able to improve the current Bill beyond all recognition.
	I shall not rehearse the arguments that I have already made in Committee and on Report. We have an extremely difficult clause 1, with the new offence of encouragement to terrorism, into which the ill-fated reference by the Prime Minister to the glorification of terrorism has been rolled. I fail to see the need for that new offence, as incitement to violence can be covered in other ways. The present definition in the Bill is quite appalling. It will catch radical campaigners of both the right and left, and immerse us in international controversy on a scale that should be avoided.
	We all talked at length about detention without charge. It is extremely important that in all normal circumstances—apart from extreme situations—we do not allow the police of our country to hold people without charge indefinitely, and persistently to continue to question them. The House was persuaded to move to 14 days, with effect from the early part of 2004. The Australians are still in a ferocious internal controversy about whether to move to 14 days. The 90-day period is preposterous and I have yet to hear a good case for 28 days. The only case that would induce me to vote for 28 days would be that it was better than 90 days, and that if we did not vote for it the Bill would leave the House of Commons unchanged. I hope that the Lords address that point.
	I am rather worried about a consensus that seems to be growing about questioning after a charge has been laid. There are restrictions on the ability to question after someone has been charged in this country, although in my opinion—unless they have changed since the days when I practised—they are not as absolute as some people have assumed. If there is new evidence, questioning can be resumed, and I do not quite see what the difficulty is meant to be. Before we sweep away the whole question of allowing the police to continue to question a suspect after he or she has been charged with an offence, we should hesitate and exercise some care.
	I agree with those who say that, if the idea is that we should bring in someone without sufficient evidence to bring a charge against them and persist in questioning them day after day for a month—let alone three months—we are likely to start to produce evidence or confessions that no one will regard as reliable because of the undue pressure put on the suspect since he or she was brought in.
	I mention en passant, because I kept going on about it, that the extraterritorial application of the Bill is absolutely extraordinary. I do not wish to have bizarre litigation in this country with people arguing from strange parts of the world about whether they were terrorists or freedom fighters when they made a speech that someone has decided justifies their being arrested on a visit to London. I really do think that we must comply with our international obligations, but we must not go one inch beyond what we have committed ourselves to.
	My final point causes me most concern. The atmosphere of the past two or three days, when the Prime Minister made the foolish decision to intervene and stake his own authority on the proposition that got defeated last night, has been extremely unpleasant. An attempt has been made to whip up popular fervour. I have no idea whether the Government were associated with The Sun newspaper's campaign, but the close connections between the present Government and the Murdoch press are well known.
	The Home Office's encouragement to ACPO and the chief constables to start going in for political lobbying was taking ACPO into very dangerous territory indeed. We all have the highest respect for the opinion of chief constables and indeed for the police who are at the sharp end of the fight against terrorism, but to start lobbying for a political position in Parliament is not what ACPO and chief constables should do.
	I return to the point that I made when my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) intervened. If we pass criminal law of any kind in the House in response to populist campaigns on the back of well-publicised crimes and if we are all told that we should go out and just take an opinion poll or read the newspapers, we will have some appalling legislation. Indeed, it is the danger that we might slip into that that gives a role to the upper House and, indeed, to the courts.
	Whenever I see a chance being taken to try to bounce Parliament into some ill-considered, populist measure that impinges on personal liberty, I think how lucky in some ways the Americans are to have the Supreme Court to make sure that their Congressmen cannot do that. It is probably wise that we remain signatories to the European convention on human rights, and I do not resent British judges feeling themselves bound by that convention to make the principles of human rights override populist legislation.
	We have an upper House, and it is very sad that we have got into a state where this House is increasingly passing silly, ill-considered, populist legislation, with everyone relying on the fact that the upper House will rewrite it. This is by no means the first Bill in the past five years that we have allowed to leave the Commons with all hon. Members on both sides of the House knowing perfectly well that some of its provisions will not last five minutes once it gets to the House of Lords and that, fortunately, the House of Lords will rewrite it and send it back.
	The last time that something similar happened, we had all-night sittings when a bizarre attempt was made to bully this House and the upper House into agreeing to provisions on control orders that, I am glad to say, both found quite unacceptable, and the Government had to compromise. I hope on this occasion that having had a bloody nose on the Floor of this House—this is where Governments of all complexions should get a bloody nose when they step an inch too far—the Government will not try to start imposing some of the worst features of the Bill on either this House or the House of Lords.
	The Bill should never have been introduced. It contains some of the silliest and most curiously drafted pieces of criminal law that we have seen for a long time, and the House of Lords will probably make it much more sensible. I hope that the Home Secretary will finally reveal to us whether he is the gentle face of the Government, or genuinely the conciliatory and more liberal policy maker in the Government. If he has more arguments with the Prime Minister about whether they should tough it out, or reason with their colleagues in Parliament to reach an acceptable consensus, I will be grateful.
	If we have no more bombs, the Home Secretary's assertion that we might try to move the whole thing on to a more stable basis and come back in a year's time to make a genuine attempt to get a consensus in a less charged atmosphere will be welcome. We all hate terrorism and we would like the broadest possible agreement on what should be done to enable people to protect us from it. A more measured view is the way to go about that, rather than trying to take through Bills such as this.

Piara S Khabra: We have heard a lot of argument, discussion and debate in the House. There has been a lot of intellectual haggling and squabbling to try to win the argument on the question of civil liberties and the length of time for which people should be detained. Some of the barristers and solicitors in the House, as well as others, have exercised their vocal cords to try to win the argument.
	I broadly support the measures in the Bill. I recognise the unique situation in which we find ourselves in this country when fighting a terrorist threat of new complexity, with new evils and new murderous proportions. However, I was disappointed that hon. Members did not vote yesterday for a pre-charge detention period of 90 days, which the police requested for a good reason.
	My constituents and I are sadly no strangers to the evils of terrorism. In the middle of the 1980s, I was subjected to murderous threats against my life by terrorists and placed under armed police protection. Terrorists in the UK who were supporters of a separatist movement in the Punjab in India murdered three law-abiding members of my constituency in Southall and included me on their murderous hit list. Kashmiri terrorists murdered an Indian diplomat in Birmingham. Those terrorists were able to enjoy the freedoms of this country that were available to them and to foster terrorism here and abroad by disseminating their message and collecting money for their evil acts in the UK. Such opportunities should not be afforded to any terrorists in the future. In summer 2001, a Real IRA bomb exploded in Ealing town centre, in my constituency. It caused millions of pounds of damage to property, but fortunately did not result in the loss of human life.
	Evil and terrifying as the acts in my constituency that I have described were, they do not compare with the new terrorist threat that we face today in the wake of the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist atrocities when suicide bombers were intent on taking as many lives as possible in terrifying circumstances.
	We all know that we face a new threat of chilling proportions, and we have felt the reality of such a threat with the sad events of 7 July. The new threat, with its new complexities—with international terrorists using new technologies and computer encryptions—requires a new response by the Government and the country. New police powers must be given to tackle it. The Government have been pushed into that situation. They have no choice but to tackle the deadly new terrorist threat to protect the people of this country.
	The threat should be met in a united way. The whole House and country should be united. Sadly, the Tories show double standards. When in government, they wanted to introduce tough laws and always claimed to be the custodians of law and order. Now, in opposition, they enjoy the luxury of opposing parts of the Bill and of voting against police advice in spite of the evidence held by the police and security services. What hypocrisy!
	Three different categories of people spoke in opposition to the Bill and the 90-day pre-charge detention period. First, there were those who had genuine concerns about civil liberties. Secondly, there were those who were naive about civil liberties and the terrorist threat. Thirdly, there were those who indulged in cheap politics by opposing the 90-day amendment as a weapon against the Prime Minister and the Government.

Stewart Hosie: Surely there is a fourth category: those who believed that the doubling of pre-charge detention from 14 to 28 days to provide the necessary time for the police was useful in principle, and who were not forced to take that position, who were not hypocrites and who did not indulge in oppositionalism? That category should be mentioned as well.

Piara S Khabra: I am coming to that and will tell the hon. Gentleman why the Government had a good reason for introducing the 90-day detention. We are not dealing with an ordinary situation. It is unique. We are dealing not with ordinary criminals, but with terrorists and organised terrorist activity. They have a network everywhere and keep this country under the threat of terror. I agree with the Government's proposed detention period of 90 days. I hope that hon. Members who voted against the police advice of 90 days will not live to regret their decision. I also hope that the police will be able to halt the efforts of the murderous terrorists within the 28 days that the House, in its wisdom, has decided to give them.
	Detaining arbitrarily a massive number of suspects would be unpopular, counterproductive and wrong. As a Member of Parliament with a large ethnic minority population in my constituency, I am sensitive to people's concerns. However, I am also convinced that the vast majority of my constituents supported the proposed measures to deal with the threat. The new powers would, I believe, have been used only in exceptional circumstances, where there was strong evidence and it was felt necessary for an early arrest to protect the public from terrorist attacks.
	We never know how terrorists organise such activities. We know that they have the facilities in this country. Ours is a liberal country, which provides all sorts of protection, even to those who are engaged in such activities. We are dealing not with a catch-all situation, but with something that is designed with the new terrorist very much in mind. I believe that many human rights campaigners and civil libertarians take a naive view of the people with whom we are dealing. They wrongly charge the Home Secretary with trampling on their civil liberties.
	The UK is a mature, democratic country. The measures that we have been discussing will take effect only where there is strong evidence. Law-abiding citizens not involved in terrorist activity will have nothing to worry about.
	It must be emphasised that we are dealing with a completely new and dangerous situation. Terrorist and suicide bombers from across the world plan for long periods the mass murder of innocent civilians. Some Northern Ireland Members know what terrorists can do, how they organise and how much damage to the community they can cause. It is not ordinary crime where individuals are involved in murder, rape, robbery or fraud and where it is not necessary to detain suspects for a long period. When terrorism is involved and the lives of people are at risk, there is a need to detain suspects for a longer period to enable the police to investigate. When it is a well planned international conspiracy, we all know that al-Qaeda is involved.
	Only yesterday a bomb exploded in Amman in Jordan. Obviously that is not the United Kingdom, so terrorists are active throughout the world. We must face the fact that terrorism is in this country. Terrorists have the motive and intention of killing as many people as possible—innocent ordinary men, women and children. We must understand that that is completely different from other forms of crime.
	The security services and the police definitely need a longer period to detain and question terrorist suspects given the nature of their planning. I hope that 28 days will be enough, but I fear that it will not be—hence my support yesterday was for detention for 90 days.
	Those opposed to 90-day detention are forgetting these clear facts and treat the Bill as if it deals with an ordinary situation. It is not only the civil liberties of those who are detained that are put at risk. In my opinion it is complete nonsense to suggest otherwise.
	The Government have a responsibility to protect the civil liberties and human rights of citizens as they go about their lives, safe from the evil threats of terrorism, so we must act to give the police the extra power that they need. The Bill's opponents can celebrate today and in future over the defeat of the Government, but they will feel sorry when terrorists strike in our cities once again.

Patrick Cormack: I think that the last remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) were unworthy of him. We all hold him in great affection and we are all delighted that he escaped those terrorist attacks in 1980, not least in my case, because he affords me the rare privilege of following someone in the House who is older.
	I say to him in a spirit of true friendship that if he reads the report of his speech he should reconsider some of the remarks that he made about those who voted in the opposite Lobby from him. Perhaps there were some hon. Members who were seeking to settle scores with the Prime Minister. I do not know, but it is possible. However, the vast majority of those who voted yesterday in an opposite sense to the hon. Gentleman did so because they genuinely had real concerns. It was not, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) so eloquently put it, because they were soft on terrorism. All decent Members of Parliament—I believe that most of us are—are fundamentally opposed to terrorism. We all want to see our Government, and it is our Government—I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not present—uniting Parliament and the nation behind a series of coherent and sensible measures. But some of us felt that the measures contained in the Bill were not particularly coherent, and some of them had not been properly thought through.
	I yield to no one in my admiration for the Prime Minister's personal courage. I do not always agree with him, but the Prime Minister has on many occasions demonstrated real political courage. He has also demonstrated on a number of occasions that he is capable of being the political leader of the nation. When he spoke on 18 March 2003 in that amazing debate before the country went to war—let us not forget that he gave the House the opportunity to vote on that—he spoke with a passion and an eloquence that I have never heard exceeded by any Prime Minister in my 35 years in the House. When he came before the House on the Monday after those despicable acts on 7 July, he spoke for the nation and was congratulated on so doing by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, by the leader of the Liberal Democrats and by speaker after speaker in all parts of the House.
	I am not in any way impugning the integrity of the Prime Minister or his ability to rise to the occasion, but in this instance I do not think that he did entirely rise to the occasion. I say that for a number of reasons. First, although I do not doubt for a minute that he believed with passionate sincerity that 90 days was right, he did not do anything to convince a majority of the House that that was right. He rather acted on the "Alice in Wonderland" principle that if I say a thing three times, it must be true. He said it more than three times, but many of us were not entirely convinced that it was true.
	Then there was that rather crude attempt—I absolve my own chief constable, because I received no letter from him—to persuade chief constables, in the apposite words of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), to act not as those who would brief, but as those who would lobby. That is not their function, important servants of the Crown though they are.
	What I would like to have seen and what we did not have was a concerted attempt properly to brief Members in all parts of the House. Perhaps if we had been so briefed, more of us might have been convinced of the 90 days. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall has been so convinced, and I do not doubt his sincerity.

Piara S Khabra: rose—

Patrick Cormack: No, I shall carry on, if I may.
	The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), who made an excellent and moving speech earlier, was not convinced. As between those two gentlemen, I do not believe there is one scintilla of difference as to their genuineness, their sincerity, their passionate support for their own political party or their desire to serve the nation, but they have come to different conclusions, and I honour them for that.
	As I observed earlier, we sometimes get circular letters. I hope the Solicitor-General will make a note of this. If we had all had a letter from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, telling us that there was real conviction and inviting us to briefings—there are precedents for that, such as before the beginning of the Iraq war—we could have gone to the Home Office or to rooms in Westminster Hall, and we could have been briefed. We could then have exercised our democratic duty in the House on the basis of information given to us. I do not know what conclusion I would have come to.
	I suspect that I might have been on the Prime Minister's side because yesterday, by chance, I chaired the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs—two of its members are in the Chamber—and Sir Hugh Orde, whom I hold in high regard, gave evidence. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who voted with the Government, asked the Chief Constable whether he believed that 90 days was justified. He gave a brief but passionate answer, which was so initially—I am choosing my words carefully—compelling that if I had spent an hour in his company, discussing the matter directly, I might have been convinced. I do not know.
	However, I was not given such an opportunity. That applies to all Back Benchers because the cross-party talks were confined to the Front Benchers. I do not claim that there should not be talks between Front Benchers—of course there should. On such an issue, they are vital. But the vast majority of hon. Members do not sit on the Front Benches. Every hon. Member is equal in his or her vote—[Interruption]—and responsibilities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) reminds me, in an intervention that was untypically sotto voce. We should, therefore, have been treated equally.

Piara S Khabra: When the Conservative party is in government, it is prepared to listen to police advice but when it is in opposition, and the police ask for 90 days for good reasons—to detain people who are involved in or planning terrorist activity—it does not. What is the difference? Why are Conservative Members unable to consider 90 days, even on the advice of the police?

Patrick Cormack: There are some fundamental misunderstandings in the hon. Gentleman's question. First, the country has never had the benefit of my services in government—I infinitely regret that and the country is much the poorer for it—and I cannot therefore speak as a member of a Conservative Government. However, it is the duty of advisers to advise, the responsibility of those whom they advise to listen, and the obligation of those who are in executive government to present proposals to the House. It is for the House to determine the ultimate content of the legislation.
	As I said earlier, much as I like the hon. Gentleman, he has been too narrow in his definitions and interpretations of yesterday. He has imputed party political motives to those who did not have them. On such an issue, many of us regard every vote as a free vote and would never be constrained by Whips to go into a Lobby if we did not agree. I can cite my frequent rebellions on Bosnia in the period of Conservative Government, when a few of us stood out because we believed that our Government were wrong. We all do those things. Just as I do not question the hon. Gentleman's passionate sincerity, he should not question mine or that of any other hon. Member. He, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, my hon. and energetic Friend the Member for Buckingham, who is about to bounce up again, and I all go to our constituents, answer to them and ask them to send us back here. I know a bit more about that this year than do most hon. Members.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; I certainly would not want to disappoint him by failing to bounce at the appropriate moment. In reinforcement of his argument on motivation, may I remind the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, invited Conservative Members to support the Bill on Second Reading? I respected his motivation, but I disapproved of the advice and I rejected it. I voted against the Bill because I thought that it was wrong. It would be a good idea if the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) took to heart the behaviour of the late Austrian economist and philosopher, Friedrich von Hayek. It is said that his view was that one should accuse someone only of intellectual error, and nothing worse.

Patrick Cormack: I am almost tempted to quote Richter, the conductor, when he said to the third flute:
	"Your damned nonsense I can stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never!"
	But, of course, my hon. Friend makes a good point.
	To return to the point that I was making, I believe that we should have been better informed. The point was made yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and me, and by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and others, that this debate has not been structured as it should have been. This has been treated as emergency legislation, but it is not. Emergency legislation—it is generally wrong; one has only to think of the legislation on dangerous dogs, or that enacted after the Omagh bombing—is introduced in the wake of a specific emergency and rushed through the House. There is a case for it in theory, even though it often does not work well in practice.
	This however is not emergency legislation, and the constraints on the House at this juncture of this Parliament are not such that we could not have had considerably more time to debate the Bill. It might even have been better, within the allotted time scale, to have spent more time on Report and less on Third Reading. We should have been able to debate the definition of terrorism, but we did not. There were other matters that we should have been able to debate properly—including stop and search, on which a new clause had been tabled—but did not. Those issues must be debated. We have had quite a discussion today, following the welcome announcement of Lord Carlile's new responsibilities.
	The definition of terrorism will have to be debated in the other place. I have a very high regard for the other place. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, I would leave it as it is; I would not muck it around. However, he and I unite in saying that, while it is as it is, it has a real function and a real responsibility, and they are very considerable in regard to this Bill. The Bill needs further significant amendment. There must be a tightening up of definitions, and further attention must be paid to the glorification concept—a misguided one, in my view, even though I understand the motives behind it. There must also be a further opportunity to consider the period of detention. I am not convinced that we have decided on the right period. The Home Secretary said that that issue would not be reopened, but it might well be, when the Bill reaches the other place. If it is, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that any amendments made in the other place are properly and fully considered.
	In a very spirited speech yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham referred to this Chamber as the "cockpit of parliamentary democracy", and he was right. Even though I attach enormous importance to Select Committees and other Committees, this is the most important part of both Houses of Parliament. In this Chamber, there should be adequate and almost unrestricted opportunity for full and lengthy debate on issues of great importance. In that 1970 Parliament in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and I were new Members, I well remember how night after night we were kept up by the Labour Opposition, led by people such as Eric Heffer and John Mendelson, great orators in their day, on the Industrial Relations Bill. On the final day, as dawn broke, I remember a chorus of "The Red Flag" coming from the Opposition Lobby, as they felt that they had exercised their democratic responsibility. I am not advocating a return to those days, as current Labour Members would not know the words—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could now bring us forward in time to the Bill currently before the House.

Patrick Cormack: A little reminiscence illustrates, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	This is a very important point. I am not advocating a return to those all-night sittings. What I am advocating is that Bills such as this should have more time. They should not be treated as emergency legislation when they should be the Government's considered response to an issue of great national importance. May I make a plea through the Solicitor-General that when we have amendments back from the other place, we should be given adequate time on the Floor of the House to debate those issues? It is crucial that that should be the case.
	Let me end where I began. There is a real need for the House to be united in fighting terrorism. That real need, in my view, involves a recognition, in contradiction of a fundamental principle of English law, in a sense, that it is better that one person be detained wrongly than that a bomb go off in the underground. The legislation must be so structured, however, that the opportunity for the wrong person to be detained must be the minimum, and there must be a consensus in the House that we have got it right.
	I will support the Bill tonight if there is a Division, and I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will do likewise. I am glad that the Liberal Democrats will not oppose it. I honour those who will do so, because I respect their motives. It is important, however, that as we search for consensus we do not just roll over, and that we always respect the honest, firmly held views, based on convictions, of those who might not agree with our beliefs and prejudices, of which we all have both.
	I wish this Bill a safe passage, and I hope above all that when it finally goes on to the statute books it will be a much better Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several Members are hoping to catch my eye. May I make a plea that if contributions were brief, they might be more successful in doing so?

Gordon Banks: I have listened intently to a large amount of the debate on the Bill over the past few days and weeks. I am glad that I have the opportunity to raise a few issues today, and I will be brief.
	In the early stages of the Bill's consideration, I had reservations about the Government's proposal for the pre-charge detention period of up to 90 days. I came to the opinion that there was significant movement by the Government in relation to issues surrounding the clause, brought about largely by the empowered discussion and knowledge of the House. In my mind, the proposal for seven-day judicial review by High Court judges, or by judges of the Court of Session in Scotland, and for defence representation at such hearings, addressed any sort of inappropriate use of the proposals. Having listened to much of the debate, however, I am left with the impression that our judiciary would have been unable to act in everyone's best interests in the face of a maximum 90-day detention period, which is not a view that I hold.
	I think that the sunset clause would have provided a suitable way of determining whether the 90-day period worked in practice. It would have allowed both Houses to analyse its use and effect, establish the average number of detention days and then possibly suggest to the Government that the legislation should be adjusted to fit the actuality. I supported the 90-day period last night because I thought that the mechanisms were appropriate. Both police forces in my constituency, Central Scotland and Tayside police, confirmed to me that they agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland on the issue.

Stewart Hosie: Did the hon. Gentleman speak directly to the chief constable of Tayside? If so, did the chief constable confirm his support for the 90-day period?

Gordon Banks: I did not speak to him directly, but I spoke to one of his staff officers, and was told that his position was the same as that outlined by the chief constable of Fife on behalf of ACPOS.

Nick Hurd: What was the one compelling argument that emerged from those discussions?

Gordon Banks: The police were happy with the proposal. They are the experts, and I will be guided by them. I believe that we should be guided by the experts—the police and the security forces—because they are charged with protecting our security, and because they risk criticism and condemnation if they fail to keep us safe should further terrorist atrocities occur.
	I believe that new threats require new methods, and I believe that the current terrorist threat is new to our way of life. I am not convinced that, in its present form, the Bill deals adequately with the threat that we face. Much has been made of civil liberties and rights, but it has been largely one-way traffic. What about the human rights of people in this country not to be victims of terrorism—not to be maimed by suicide bombers, or killed by religious fanatics who want to destroy our very way of life?
	There has been much discussion about the 110-day limit in Scotland, and a certain lack of knowledge has been displayed. As a Scottish Member, I remind the House that the 110 days relate to the period between the charge and the case being brought to court. It never was and never will be an additional 110-day period of detention before charge.
	As we have heard, the pre-charge detention period would have been used only in exceptional circumstances. Today Members have mentioned five, 10, 15 and 20 people. In my view, those are low numbers. Indeed, I fear that 28 days will prove inadequate, and that something may happen that could have been avoided if the House had adopted "up to 90 days" yesterday.

John Hemming: If evidence is put before a High Court judge and is sufficient to warrant someone's detention, why is that evidence not sufficient for someone to be charged and remanded in custody?

Gordon Banks: We have had that discussion several times today and in earlier debates, and enough convincing arguments have already been made. I have spent only a short time in Parliament, but I want to say that this debate has impressed me most and that applies to both sides of the House. Despite my disappointment about the conclusion of last night's vote, I recognise the will of this democratically elected House. I simply hope that the media speculation in today's press and the words I have expressed today come to nothing.

Lynne Featherstone: It is hard to stand up against the tide of opinion in this country when it is ranged against us. It is also hard in the wake of the terrorist bombing not to react to that fear. However, I believe that the House is at its best when it keeps a cool head and does not abdicate its responsibilities. It was fear in the USA that got President Bush his second term in office.
	I have to say that I took huge exception to the Prime Minister calling anyone who opposed his view "woefully complacent". We are not. Sadly, I have no doubt that terrorists will strike again or that they may be trying to do so as we speak, but I do not believe that the 90-day provision will be the critical factor in stopping them. During Prime Minister's questions, we were told that the Muslim community—the community that will be most vulnerable, I believe, at the sharp end of the new detention powers—did not want to be seen as standing against the Bill.
	The Home Secretary challenged us to consult about the legislation in our constituencies, so I did. I consulted the secretary of the Wightman road mosque, which is just across the border in Tottenham, but serves Hornsey and Wood Green and Tottenham. I received a letter from that secretary, who is also secretary of the London Islamic Cultural Society. It reads:
	"Dear Lynne,
	Eid greetings to you and all your colleagues . . . I apologise for the delay in getting back to you in relation to the Anti Terror Bill currently being debated. Having discussed with quite a few members the general feeling/concern is:
	We do not agree with increasing the detention period from 14 to 90 days. There is concern about the methods used to interrogate suspects"—
	the methods used in the past under terrorist laws. It continues:
	"Many have been released without charge and are suffering mental health problems . . . these are innocent individuals. Even serial murderers have rights! We in the UK have been subjected to terrorism before where areas of the UK were bombed including MPs but at no time did the government find it necessary to bring in such radical laws . . . The Muslim community feel very vulnerable."
	It continues by making it clear that "the general feeling" was that the Prime Minister was trying
	"to undermine our civil rights and . . . this type of law is condemned by the UK and the US as being 'undemocratic' 'illegal' and 'inhumane' when adopted by other countries—but strangely when used by themselves it is 'protecting the country'. It reeks of double standards."
	The letter continues:
	"Lynne—please understand that we in no way agree with misguided individuals compromising our safety. No! This is totally unislamic, but you have to understand that our Muslim community are scared and concerned for the safety of their children and families. These laws prohibit even the law abiding families knowing what is happening to their loved ones"—
	or why they have been charged. It continues:
	"Our worry is that the unfairness of the actions will give rise to more and more people feeling trapped, alienated, seeing the bias, feeling discriminated against".
	I am not sure who the Prime Minister was talking about when he said that the Muslim community would not react against the proposals. The rest of the postbag on this issue has been a 50:50 split.
	I want to tackle another aspect, as I understand that in Andy Hayman's letter—[Interruption.]

Andrew Miller: I accept that the hon. Lady has read out her letter from people in her constituency in good faith, but it contains a fundamental inaccuracy in respect of what the proposed legislation contains. Has she written back and corrected that inaccuracy?

Lynne Featherstone: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to elucidate about the particular inaccuracy to which he is referring.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Lady referred to people not having rights in respect of getting information to and from their families. As I understand it, the Bill—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) would be a little patient. As I understand the Bill, it confers absolute rights, which have been reinforced and are stronger than the rights of suspects under existing legislation. Did she not make her constituents aware of that point?—[Interruption.]

Lynne Featherstone: Given Members' remarks from sedentary positions, it seems that that is not the case in law. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May we have this debate conducted along proper parliamentary lines?

Lynne Featherstone: In his letter of explanation, Andy Hayman referred to the ricin incident that took place in my constituency. I was completely astonished at his using this as an example, because it was one of the most extraordinarily badly conducted operations that I have come across. I raised this issue publicly at the full meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority, at the full board of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, and with the chair of Haringey Teaching Primary Care Trust. Had the substance in question been ricin, mass evacuation would have been necessary, but the Met did not inform the chief executive of Haringey council, the chair of the PCT or the fire chief until some 48 hours after making this discovery. I was told by a very highly placed source that the explanation for that delay was news management on the part of No. 10.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to relate her remarks to Third Reading of the Bill?

Lynne Featherstone: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was about to bring my remarks back into context.
	One arrestee, who was released after only two days and left the country, could have been arrested under the Bill's provision on acts preparatory to terrorism, because a white substance was found. I was shocked to learn that the ricin incident was one of the arguments used in Andy Hayman's letter as evidence in favour of the 90-day provision. It is woefully inadequate.
	The police do not always get it right. After five years' involvement with the Met police authority, I have become familiar with its way of arguing. It did not get it right when Mr. de Menezes was shot. It did not get it right with the evidence produced in respect of the Birmingham six, or the Guildford four. Even Sir Ian Blair got his information wrong after the shooting of Mr. de Menezes. We have yet to hear from the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
	We now have the 28-day provision, but I hope that it is only a starting point as it is not good enough on its own. More safeguards are needed. There must be special checks and balances for the handful of cases that the Home Secretary refers to, so that only they are subject to the 28-day provision. God forbid that there is another terrorist attack, but my fear is that if there is, a greater number of people will be rounded up under this law.
	One of the main arguments advanced was that more time is needed because of the complications associated with encryption. According to information that I received, it takes a police officer 12 hours to produce a report on a computer disc for senior supervising officers. If it takes 12 hours to analyse one computer disc to produce such a report, it is simply a question of providing sufficient resources.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Lady is right about encryption, but she has missed the point—as a number of Members have throughout our deliberations—that even an unencrypted 500 gigabytes disc of the type that I have in my own home would take many months for those not familiar with the content to go through. Therein lies the problem.

Lynne Featherstone: Therein lies the question of the training resource.
	The experience in the House this week has been a sobering one. All in the House argued and fought for what they believed was right. I take exception to the implication by those on the Labour Benches that if one does not agree with 90 days, one does not take terrorism seriously.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lynne Featherstone: No, I have reached my conclusion.
	We all act according to what we believe is in the best interests of our constituents.

David Anderson: May I first thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael)? As a lifelong fan of Sunderland football club, I am over the moon to hear that anybody follows Sunderland because we are desperate for support wherever we can get it.
	I welcome the concern and interest with which the Government have listened to the voice of public servants in this debate and the time and energy that they have put into letting us know what the police know. I hope that that bodes well for the future and that we listen to public servants and the organisations that represent them when we are dealing with health and education reforms.
	No one is unaware of the importance of this legislation. Despite the long, sad history of terrorism that these islands have been subjected to over the past 35 years, we face a situation that, for many reasons that have been well rehearsed in this Chamber over the past few days, is unprecedented. I will not rehearse those reasons again. We have had masses of information—whether it has been good, bad or indifferent, we have had lots of it from many sources—particularly from those to whom we turn when we want them to look after us and our people. They believe that this unprecedented threat warrants draconian measures that have no parallel in any period of our history. We decided, in our wisdom, not to give them the powers that they sought, but whether we agree with 28 days, 90 days or something in between, we must not let the situation that we face prevent us from looking at this law in the same way as any other. We have to be convinced that although it might be right and proper to use strong measures to counter this very real threat, we have constructed the law so that it cannot be perverted or misused in future.
	Earlier this week, I raised with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and with chief police officers—the personnel concerned with security in this country—the way in which most right-minded people viewed existing laws as being abused during the miners strike in 1984–85. At that time, police were using Road Traffic Acts and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 to halt miners at the Dartford tunnel and tell them that they were not allowed to travel the 200 miles to Nottingham, even though people were trying to enjoy their legal right to picket. We had exclusion orders given as bail conditions, which meant that miners were separated from their families and communities, sometimes for months on end. Perhaps most seriously of all, we saw the use of the Riot Act at Mansfield and Orgreave, out of which, ultimately, no cases were proven. The impact of the application of those laws had the desired effect sought by the Government of the day, who, after all, believed that the people concerned were the enemy within. Miners and their union were prevented from using their right to picket and convince others to support them; the misuse of those laws took them out of the game. We hope that these laws will not be used in that way.
	I have been advised, and I accept, that the situation is not the same as in 1984. If the Bill had been tightly drawn, so that it could never be used against anyone other than those we are facing today, I would have felt more comfortable with the proposals right from the start. I also have to face up to the fact that our job is not just to prevent innocent people from being locked up; it is also to prevent innocent people from being blown up. Like everyone in the House, I hope that I do not have to visit a mother or father in the next few years and say, "I'm very sorry that your son or your daughter was locked up when they should not have been." Bad as that would be, surely it would be worse to go and see a mother and father and say, "Sorry your son, your daughter, has been blown up. That should not have happened and I might have been able to stop it."
	That is the real challenge that has faced the House over the past month. We must face up to our responsibilities. I believe that hon. Members have acted in good faith and shown good judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington) is a good friend of mine, but he was also my leader and mentor for many years in my previous existence. I respect what he said today and I hope that he reciprocates my feelings.
	I believe that we should have given the police the 90 days for which they asked. I accept that what we have given them represents an extraordinary step, and I look forward to the day when we are able to take it back because they do not need it any more. That day should be the real goal for all of us in the House.

John Hemming: The argument used for detention pre-charge is that questioning cannot occur after charge. What is there in law to prevent that?

David Anderson: I have listened to all sides of the argument. I took umbrage about the lack of respect shown to Gareth Peirce, but I have also listened to the Home Secretary and the police chiefs. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, some of us have had the privilege to listen to Sir Hugh Orde. It is pity that most hon. Members did not have the opportunity to do that, as I think that he is in a unique position to offer advice. We have to live with the version of Bill that we have arrived at, and I hope that the outcome will be positive.
	I return to the lessons that we can learn from 1984. We can debate the rights and wrongs of what happened forever, but the actions of the Government at the time, and of the police and the judiciary, led to a massive feeling of disillusion in the mining communities. People came to mistrust the police, and many still do. In addition, 11,000 people were arrested in the dispute. Most were regarded as heroes in the mining communities. If the Bill causes the same thing to happen in Muslim communities, we will have a big problem. The Government therefore must make sure that the legislation is as tight as possible. It must be applied fairly, and it must not be abused.
	The legislation must be monitored properly—that is vital. I am not sure what the impact of the sunset clause will be, but the law must be used very sparingly. It must be subject to the closest possible scrutiny and applied very tightly. We cannot return to what happened in 1984, when so much mistrust was caused. If that happens, the problems that we face could become a great deal worse.

Peter Robinson: This has been a challenging Bill for all of us in the House. Those of us who have sat through all its stages will know that it required us to dig deep into our consciences and reach a considered judgment on many serious issues.
	I hope that the Government do not come to believe that they have been defeated. They have produced a Bill that will offer a considerable advantage in the war against terrorism. The one issue that has divided the House should not be allowed to cloud the overall impact of the Bill, much of which, in its amended form, will be of great value.
	I want to touch on three issues. First, my colleagues and I will support the Third Reading of the Bill, even though we remain concerned about the question of glorification. Those proposals are drawn very widely and we are worried about some of the possible uses to which the clause may be put. We are also concerned that the Director of Public Prosecutions is the only safeguard against abuse of the provision. However, the overall benefit of the legislation is sufficient for us to set that concern to one side and perhaps to hope that the other place may be able to take some corrective measures.
	We have been mindful throughout the process that this is a terrorist Bill. At every stage that has been at the forefront of my mind, particularly coming from where I do in Northern Ireland. The Province that I represent has suffered considerably over the past four decades. Members who represent Northern Ireland know better than most what the dangers of terrorism are and what the impact of various elements of legislation can be. Therefore, we approached the debate recognising that difficult decisions had to be taken and might not always be understood.
	The second issue that I want to touch on is the need for the House to be united in the battle against terrorism. I can well understand that the Home Secretary is a little bruised today. He seems to be flaying around a little. However, I do not believe that the type of yah-boo politics, "I'm tougher against terrorism than you are" will advance us. Conservatives could argue that they suggested that intercept evidence should be taken into account, which would have toughened the legislation. If I wanted to get into yah-boo politics no doubt I would say that it ill became the Government to lecture the House about being tough on terrorism when, on the day of the Committee stage key vote, they introduced legislation to allow on-the-run terrorists in Northern Ireland to go through a farce of a judicial process to be freed. It does not help us to go down that road. It is far better that we all recognise that the House must be seen to be united in the battle against terrorism.
	I certainly take it hard to hear the Home Secretary say that those of us who voted for 28 days are soft on terrorism. I entered politics because my friend was killed by terrorists. Few of my colleagues on this Bench have not been shot at or bombed. I have had two bombs sent to me and I have to have permanent police protection because of the danger from terrorism. Nobody in Northern Ireland would consider me to be soft on terrorists.
	I come from a party that was opposed to internment. Because we are regarded as at least a centre right party, most people would have expected us to support internment. We opposed it and we were right to do so. We saw the effects that it had in Northern Ireland. I am not saying that the 90 days would have been in effect internment, but there were similar features. The impact on the nationalist community at first, and within sections of the Unionist community later when people were picked up, held for long periods and ultimately released, undoubtedly aided those who wanted to stir up the anger of the community against the state. There is no inconsistency in our position that we were opposed to internment.
	From Second Reading, we made it clear to the Home Secretary that we were convinced from the evidence from chief constables and others that he had a case to increase the detention period beyond the existing 14 days, but we were not at that stage convinced that he had made a case to extend it to 90 days. We supported the Government on Second Reading to give the Home Secretary the opportunity to convince us and, frankly, we were open to be convinced. In our own discussions we felt that there certainly was a case to extend the period to 28 days. We were even minded to go as far as 60 days, but no case suggested to us that 90 days was the appropriate length of time. I do not say—and I hope that no one will suggest—that 90 days was right or wrong, or that 28 days is right or wrong. It was a judgment call; it is not an exact science. There are advantages to 90 days and advantages to 28 days, as well as disadvantages to both.
	The overall balance that we struck recognised the dangers involved in a very long period of detention, not simply because the evidence produced in a court might be rejected because of the length of time for which an individual had been examined, but because of the injustices that could be caused as a result, especially for those who might be considered vulnerable. I am reminded of the case that is known in Northern Ireland as the UDR Four. Serving soldiers were charged and convicted of murder. They were later brought before an appeal court and three of them were released, because the convictions were unsafe. The case did not involve individuals who would have felt strange in the company of police officers or unaccustomed to the pressures of the examination to which they were subjected. However, after a period of detention, they made confessions because of the strain of the examination by the police. If that was possible under existing terror laws in Northern Ireland, it would certainly be possible during detention for 90 days. The problem is not only that the courts would find it difficult to rely on such evidence, but the injustice that might arise as a result.
	Like the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), I think that many people would say that we should have a heavy heart if someone were detained for 90 days and then released without charge, because they would feel a sense of injustice. We would have even heavier hearts if allowing detention for 90 days would have prevented a terrorist act from taking place. However, that argument could be advanced for 120 days, 360 days or beyond and that is why we had to make a judgment.
	Our view was that if the police could not come up with at least a holding charge within the time frame that my party was prepared to allow of between 28 and 60 days, it was unlikely that they would be able to produce a more substantive charge by the end of 90 days. The decision that has been reached is the best in the circumstances. The House has settled its mind on the issue and I trust that we can bind the wounds that divided us and move forward, united, in the battle against terrorism.

Mary Creagh: I must start by returning, in the nicest possible way, the gold cup for loyalty that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) awarded to me earlier after some of my interventions, because I do not believe that the Bill is perfect. It certainly was not perfect in the form in which I first saw it in the middle of September and I still have concerns about it.
	I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) about clauses 6 and 8 and those of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about clause 6 especially. The aspect that jumped out at me was the definition of training for terrorism. In the United States, people who had trained the 9/11 bombers had suspicions that the training would be used for nefarious purposes and had alerted the police, although the intelligence was not acted on. Under the Bill, however, they would be guilty of knowing or suspecting if they continued to give that training.
	As a former academic, I also have concerns about my colleagues in education and higher education who may feel inhibited about teaching microbiology, chemistry or other things to students. Their academic freedom might be compromised by a disaffected student or, as is often the case in higher education, an envious colleague who might bring a malicious case against them.
	I am also concerned about what would happen to the people held under the provisions. They will clearly be held not in police facilities but in high-security prisons. I have visited the high-security category A prison in my constituency and seen the conditions in which high-security prisoners are kept. I would not wish that on anyone for any length of time.
	The debate has focused on the nature of the threat that we feel, but we need to return to the basic facts of the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: I listened carefully to the hon. Lady's point about academics. Does she agree that it must be possible to devise a provision that gives adequate protection for those in teaching who distribute such literature, rather than leaving them with no protection in law?

Mary Creagh: We shall have to wait to see what comes back from the other place. I am disappointed that such a provision was not drafted in this place, but I realise that people may have had other things on their minds.
	I share the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) in the transformation of the Conservative party from a party that brought in the Riot Act, and used the law to hamper civil liberties, to a party of defenders of civil rights. I have listened carefully to debates on the measure over recent weeks, especially during the last few days. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and I want to return to the pre-eminent right, which must be protected above all rights: article 2 of the European convention on human rights states:
	"Everyone's right to life should be protected by law."
	It places an absolute duty on the state to protect life, but yesterday I heard nothing about that from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis); yet from that right, all other rights flow. Article 5 states that everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person, but there are exceptions. To protect the 61 million people who live on these islands, we must ensure that the rights are balanced.
	On 7 July, 52 people were deprived of their fundamental right to life. Hundreds more suffered the agony and anxiety of losing limbs when they were caught up in the evil work of the bombers. More people were spared from losing their lives on 21 July. About a week later, the House was locked down. When I asked a police officer what was going on, he said that there was credible intelligence that a suicide bomber was in the Westminster area and on his way to this place. I have to say that I did not notice a rush of people running towards the locked doors. When people were being brought in from the Terrace, they were not happy about what was going on. We must remember such moments, because they define us as a civilised country. Is that how we want to be defined? I do not want to be defined by my response on that day. We are guilty of forgetting too easily what happened to us in July and the horrific consequences if that were ever to happen again.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is no longer in the Chamber. I am sorry that he cannot hear me say that I agree with him: terrorism is not new. I grew up in Coventry in the 1970s and 1980s. My parents were Irish—my mother from the north, my father from the south. We were part of a Catholic community. Our parish priest was imprisoned for making bombs. It is uncomfortable to be part of a community under suspicion. Fights broke out on the assembly line at British Leyland in Birmingham when people argued about the issues. Irish people were accused of being terrorists simply because of their accent. Unfortunately, in those days, people were accused and locked up because the police judged them simply on the basis of their accents. That is simply not the case now. I am glad to say that policing has moved on in the past 20 years, and we must move forward and deal with new times, new terrorism, new techniques and find new strategies to deal with the new threats that we face.
	I voted yesterday for 90 days. I serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I have listened for an hour to Peter Clarke, who is the assistant commissioner for terrorism at Scotland Yard. I recommend the evidence that he gave to our Committee to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) because it is illuminating. He says that one constant difficulty relates to the fact that hon. Members have been asking, "What is the one reason for 90 days?" We asked the police that, and the problem is that no one thing points to 90 days. The problem is complicated and difficult. There are many different strands and a tiny number of cases, which are currently sub judice, that could help the police in guiding us to a better conclusion.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mary Creagh: I will not give way, because three more hon. Members want to speak and the debate has a time scale.
	I sometimes feel that we have forgotten the nature and scale of what we are dealing with. I feel that there is a Pollyanna optimism that everything will turn out well, or a sort of defeatism that says that we have had terrorism before and we will have it in the future. I do not want to go back to Wakefield and tell people that I did not do my best to stop terrorism. I am an optimist, too. I believe in the potential of human beings, but in dealing with terrorists, we should hope for the best but plan for the worst. I passionately hope that, when we hold a debate under the review clause in a year's time, we will not regret the results of yesterday's vote.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was right when he said that we should be united in the fight against terrorism. I agree wholeheartedly with that. I have listened to many of the contributions throughout the process and I am convinced by the sincerity of every person in his or her own way in wanting to challenge this difficult problem. It is telling that the Democratic Unionist, Liberal and Conservative spokesmen have suggested that, if the motion is pushed to a vote, they will either back the Government or abstain. We in the Scottish National party would support the Government on Third Reading in the unlikely event of a vote this evening.
	There is much to commend the Bill, particularly in its amended form. The provisions on acts preparatory to terrorism are helpful and those on attendance at a training facility are necessary, notwithstanding the possible lack of a defence in certain highly unusual but possible circumstances. The adherence to the international conventions is also very useful. I welcome the confirmation that we were given in previous debates that trespass at atomic facilities will be dealt with under serious crime legislation and that such charges would not necessarily involve terrorist offences, unless there was terrorist intent. That was a useful assurance to tease out of the Government.
	I welcome the Home Secretary's comments yesterday that he would agree to consider post-charge questioning, although from everything that we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and other Members, that issue seems less difficult than many of us imagined. I welcome the sunset clause and the review, although I hope that the Minister will take on board the view that any amendment in another place should be very much in line with the sunset clause that the House voted for yesterday.
	As I said yesterday, I welcome the changes in the provisions on intent and recklessness, notwithstanding the possible wrong definition. I hope that the Government will take that on board. If the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is right, it would be ludicrous to throw out the amendment to the recklessness test. I welcome the tightening to ensure that encouragement must be addressed to individuals and that it must be shown that they have gained benefit from it. I have also said that previously.
	I am very pleased indeed about the confirmation that we appeared to receive that those subject to extended pre-charge detention of between 14 and 28 days will be entitled to legal representation and, presumably, at least some indication of the likely charge that they may face. That seems to be a huge safeguard in the extended pre-charge detention period, and I very much welcome that.
	Of course, we had the heat, froth and fallout in the newspapers about the pre-charge detention period. I hope that the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety will respond positively to this point. Many people wanted a period of 14 days on a point of principle, but were prepared to move to 28 days. Hon. Members on these Benches chose the provision for 28 days on a point of principle because it doubled the length of time allowed, which we thought was adequate. I hope that she will realise that there was a rationale for choosing 28 days. We believed that that time period did not breach the right against arbitrary detention. We also thought that evidence obtained prior to the end of the 28-day period would be admissible in a court of law, but that evidence garnered thereafter might not be. Given the Home Secretary's absence, I hope that the Minister will be more generous than he was earlier by accepting that those of us who chose 28 days on a point of principle did so for good reasons, not for some of the nefarious reasons that he perhaps tetchily mentioned earlier.
	When the Bill returns to the House after amendment elsewhere, may I suggest that serious consideration is given to allowing provisions on phone tap evidence to be included, notwithstanding some of the difficulties that that might cause the Government? It is not legislation itself, nor even the unity of purpose of the Commons, that will defeat terrorism, but additional resources for the intelligence community, as we have consistently said. Although it is slightly off the remit of the Bill, I hope that the Minister will turn her attention to that in her reply.

David Kidney: The House has arrived at a settled position, so it is now our responsibility to make the Bill work. I assume that the other place will revise the Bill, rather than transform it.
	I want to consider the advice that we should give to the police on the rare occasions when a person has been detained for 27 days and not yet charged. I believe the police and the security forces when they say that they are working actively to prevent and deter terrorist attacks on our soil. I understand why they say that they intervene sooner rather than later. We have heard a lot about how the police can get things wrong, but if they get this wrong, the results could be catastrophic, which is why they require time for investigation. We know that delays to an investigation could be caused by the decrypting of computer evidence, inquiries overseas and the tracing of records on the multiple use of pay-as-you-go mobile phones. The police need reasonable suspicion to arrest people, but admissible evidence to charge them. By the end of 28 days, the police will have to decide whether to charge or release. The House must advise them that, if they have not finished their inquiries and do not have admissible evidence, they must release.
	Some people hope that the police will charge people with other offences instead. Liberal Democrat Members say that the police could charge a suspect with a lesser terrorist offence. However, the police advise us that they will not have reached the point at which they can decide to charge because they will not have the evidence to charge a person with a terrorist offence at all.
	Some people have suggested that, if a person is charged with terrorism and must thus be put before a court, the court would of course refuse bail. However, the Hayman briefing note points out that a terrorist was granted bail and left the country, but the police subsequently believed that he was a prime conspirator, so that assertion does not help us. Conservative Members have said that a person could be charged for other reasons, such as not giving the decryption key to the police. However, that would mean that the person would have the right to attempt to get bail, which would interfere with questioning after charge.
	If we have to change the law to allow people to be questioned after charge and to stop them being granted bail, but if no one says for how much longer after 28 days such questioning may go on, we will end up in the same position as we would have reached under the Government's proposal. However, we would have done more damage to our system and given more ammunition to those who are against us and say through their propaganda that the police make trumped-up charges, keep people in and question them until they get their evidence.

John Bercow: The Government say that the main provisions of the Bill are necessary. As William Pitt said as long ago as 1783:
	"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
	The debate has, on the whole, taken place in a good-tempered and sometimes even convivial fashion, so let me be clear: I do not suggest for one moment that the Prime Minister is a tyrant. I think he is a patriot and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, a person of remarkable qualities and courage. I think that sometimes he is right. I happen to think on this occasion that he is wrong. It is a question of an honest difference of opinion—a concept that I hope the Government and their Back Benchers would be prepared to recognise.
	Specifically, the kernel of my objection to the Bill in its current form—as it was my objection on Second Reading—is that it contains too broad a range of powers, which are too vaguely defined and threaten too much damage, in return for too little benefit. I want to focus on a couple of the arguments that the Government have advanced in support of it. Neither of them strikes me as compelling.
	One argument is to say that the public want it. That, frankly, will not do. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) argued in a powerful contribution, we cannot reduce ourselves to a situation in which we accept that legislation should be formulated, defended and passed on the basis of survey research or an opinion poll. I argue—I think legitimately so—that we should heed the words of Edmund Burke who, in his letter to the electors of Bristol in 1774, said that he was their Member of   Parliament and representative, and in that capacity he owed them not merely his industry, but his judgment, and he betrayed, instead of serving them, if he sacrificed his judgment to their opinion.
	We must be prepared to look at the merits of the case. If we are not robust enough emotionally and intellectually to withstand the rather downmarket, low-grade and substandard attacks on us that will emanate from the veritable organ of public opinion, The Sun newspaper, we should not be in this place. I want to argue the case on its merits.
	The second argument that the Government advance, to which we have to pay significant attention, but which I do not regard as conclusive, is that the police tell us that the power is necessary. I was concerned by the argument of the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), who said that he was guided by that argument because we have to listen to the experts. We have a responsibility to listen to, but not be overwhelmingly persuaded by, the experts' view. That is especially so if we are not told of the evidential basis for that view. The argument, "The police say it's necessary, and that's good enough for me", may be good enough for some hon. Members, but it is not good enough for me.
	I want to know the evidential case for an extension of the period of detention without charge from 14 days to 28 days. I am still not convinced that there is such a case. I certainly should want to be persuaded that there was a compelling evidential case for 90 days. It is my view that there is a better way forward. Intercept evidence should be admissible in court proceedings. I fear that the Home Office is against that because, were the policy adopted, it would require warrants to be issued on the basis of a decision by a judge and not simply on the say-so of a junior Home Office Minister. Nevertheless, it is the right course of action and the Government should adopt it.
	Moreover, there is a better approach. If the security services cannot manage—it is a difficult process because they would have to download computer files, de-encrypt and study the detail—let us have a massive increase in the investment in the personnel, resources and training that are required to enable the police and intelligence services to do their job. I am sad that that argument was not properly explored before the Government contemplated and advocated the abandonment of an historic liberty of the British people. If, in blindfold pursuit of enhanced security, we sacrifice precious liberty we shall end up with neither enhanced security nor precious liberty. That would be a tragedy. I respect the Government's integrity. I believe that they are motivated by the highest considerations of national protection and public service, but I honestly believe that they are wrong.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). I was particularly interested in the comments that he made about the attempt to reintroduce intercept evidence. It is worth pointing out that within the past few days the Australian Government have avoided a serious attack—we assume by Islamist fundamentalists. There was excellent intelligence work, excellent intelligence gathering and excellent police work. Yet that Government are now wrangling over whether they should extend their period of detention up to that huge limit of 14 days.
	We have had some very interesting and helpful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Floor. One of the best speeches came from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), who touched with great principle on a number of subjects, not least internment. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) spoke equally well but from a different point of view. The hon. Members for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) talked of matters of high principle. Those speeches sit in stark contrast with that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), who made a rather bitter speech that impugned many people's intentions and many people's honour within the House.
	One of the most moving speeches was from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He began by talking about the need to get through and beyond and to grow up from yah-boo politics. He, too, mentioned the juxtaposition of internment as opposed to 28 days and 90 days. He spoke also, movingly, about the need for the House to combine across the parties in the fight against terrorism. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) were particularly helpful and illuminating. I agree with him that it does not seem that the Bill falls within the category of emergency legislation. I will deal in more detail with the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in a moment.
	I thought that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkland—[Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, I was referring to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The Falklands are a long way from home. I am sure that his constituents will not be grateful for that slip. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting series of points but failed to look outside the fact that the Bill should go much further than it attempts to do at present.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe made that point exactly correctly when he talked about the terrorists' aim to produce an overreaction inside this country. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) touched cleverly on that. He made the point that longer detention gives a greater possibility of evidence being obtained under duress. That is certainly something of which I have personal experience. I shall return to that.
	The speeches that started the debate need to be examined in a little more detail. The Home Secretary started with the theme of internment. Whether one uses the term or whether, like the hon. Member for Belfast, East, one merely touches on it as having parallels with the problems in Northern Ireland, the one thing that convinced me of the need to go no further than 28 days was my experience of internment in Northern Ireland. I suspect the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality would disagree, and he is welcome to do so, but there are parallels. There are similarities and dissimilarities. In a number of arrests that I carried out, people said to me, "I have never lifted a hand against the Crown forces. Yes, I am a nationalist. Yes, I am even a republican. But the thing that persuaded me and persuaded others was my unlawful detention for a long and unnecessary period." I cannot help but feel that, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members said today, if we introduce a period greater than 28 days—I am unhappy even with that—we are in grave danger of producing discontented people who will go back to the communities from which they came and spread the word of resentment against the Government.
	Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), in an intervention, spoke about the charge of sedition and why that has not been used. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has done such a brilliant job of leading on the Bill through all its stages, dealt in some depth with the nonsense of glorification and indirect incitement. He posed the question why no preachers of hate have been charged under current legislation. He went on to speak about the definition of terrorism and about the Government's vacillation, which has done them no favours over the past 10 days or so.
	If the House is to continue to consider only legislation, we would do well to concentrate on the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe who spoke of the Bill as mere gesture. We must get right the period of detention that we impose on our citizens before they are charged, but if the Bill really were emergency legislation, it should have been dealt with immediately after the attacks in July. We made that offer to the Government at the time. I fail to understand why we spend so much time concentrating on legislation which, after all, will not deter a terrorist from carrying out the new form of terrorism, about which we have heard so much today. If the Bill were not merely a gesture, we would have considered the concrete measures needed to protect our people and physically stop such attacks happening again.
	I regret that the Government have changed their position several times. I thought last week that the Home Secretary would reach some accommodation with us that allowed the whole House to go forward together. Sadly, I believe that the Prime Minister changed the Home Secretary's mind. That has weakened the Government's position, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of the public. I also very much regret the way the Association of Chief Police Officers has been used to make political points and, to borrow the words of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, to lobby and not to brief. Those are powerful words.
	We will support the Bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful to Opposition and Government Members for making it a very much more sensible and reasonable Bill, which I hope will stand us in good stead in the future.

Hazel Blears: This has been a good debate and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part. Although our audience is a little depleted compared with yesterday, some important issues have been raised. The Bill has had a fairly eventful passage through the House. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) asked why we did not introduce it in the immediate aftermath of the events of 7 July. We gave undertakings that we would deal with the Bill in normal time as far as we could, so that it received proper scrutiny in the House and was not dealt with by way of emergency legislation. I thought that had broad support.
	The Bill is the better for having had that scrutiny. I cannot say that I am entirely happy with all the changes that have been made to it, but in some respects genuine amendments have been made which help to strengthen it. Everybody is, therefore, engaged in a fairly sensible debate in the main and we will see what happens when the Bill returns from the other place.
	All I say to Members of the other place is that the major issues have been debated at length here and Members of this Chamber have voted on many of them. I want Members of the other place to take note of the fact that we are considering issues of national security—the safety of our nation—and it is therefore right and proper that the elected Chamber take a view. I ask them to take the issues on which we have voted extremely seriously.
	I asked the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) whether he could find it in his heart to acknowledge that clause 1 was better now than in its original form. He said that it was worded slightly better. I regard that as a major concession from the Opposition Front Bench and I am delighted about that.

Stephen Pound: He has gone soft.

Hazel Blears: Perhaps he has, eventually, after a great deal of discussion.
	I understand that the hon. Gentleman finds the concept of glorification distasteful; I find people who indulge in glorification more than distasteful—they are a genuine and serious threat to the security of the nation. We will have to disagree on that basis.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for his support for various aspects of the Bill. He made several points, including one about the threshold test. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has raised that matter on several occasions. It is slightly lower than the evidential test in terms of what the prosecutor looks to bring. He suggested that charging on the basis of the threshold test rather than the evidential test would be an easy alternative to a lengthier pre-detention period. I am not sure whether he knows that, if one charges on the basis of the threshold test, one must get the evidence to fulfil the evidential test within one or two days of choosing to charge on the threshold test. It is not the panacea or solution that he suggests.

David Howarth: rose—

Hazel Blears: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene but I have only a few minutes and I want to deal with as many points as I can. I simply wanted to ensure that he was aware of the details.
	Many hon. Members have asked whether post-charge questioning could be a useful additional tool in minimising the period of detention or even obviate the need for extending periods of detention. It would not fulfil the latter aim. If anything, post-charge questioning would be an additional tool, but it would not mean that all our problems with lengthier investigations had gone away. When it is in the interests of justice for detainees to have put to them—and have an opportunity to comment on—information about the offence that has come to light since they were charged or informed that they might be prosecuted, one can question post charge, but the defendant must agree to be interviewed. No hon. Members mentioned that fairly large caveat to post-charge questioning.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Hazel Blears: I am reluctant to give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for half an hour at the beginning of the debate and it is therefore only fair to allow me to respond to the issues that have been raised.
	I want to comment on the paper from Andy Hayman. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said, in a very fair contribution, that he was simply not convinced of the case. We must agree to differ on that. However, he said that the evidential case contained insufficient information to convince him. In the cases that Andy Hayman outlined, it is difficult to specify 90 days rather than 89, 91, 84 or 92. I ask hon. Members not to fixate on that.
	The police said that, in the circumstances that we are considering, their best professional advice was that an extended period of detention to 90 days in a small minority of cases, and subject to extensive judicial scrutiny, would give them the powers that they believed were necessary to conduct their investigations, bring the proper charges and have a better chance of bringing a successful prosecution.
	In one of the cases—a genuine case, which is sub judice so we cannot go into many details—that Andy Hayman outlined, he said that police were unable to put many key pieces of evidence to the suspects after the 14 days had expired. They could not put them to the suspects in an interview because they were not discovered until after the detention period had elapsed. If one cannot put the evidence to the person who is the subject of the charge, one cannot get an explanation of the circumstances of the evidence and, when one gets to trial, the evidence is much weaker. I presume that the hon. Gentleman has read Andy Hayman's paper in great detail, because he is the kind of Member who would. That paper contains a series of examples that have, in some cases, perhaps been brushed aside too lightly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) made an excellent contribution, and I am very grateful for his support. I know from our correspondence that he has genuinely struggled with these issues, and with the question of how to strike the right balance. I am pleased to have been able to write to him and other hon. Members to set out the position with regard to industrial disputes, and to give them the reassurance that these powers are to be used only in the case of terrorism, and not in the case of legitimate protest. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he raised those issues. He struggled with them, he came to a decision, and I am delighted that he supported us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty)—his constituency is slightly closer to home than the Falklands—raised important issues. I was pleased that he supported us. I want to reassure him that, in regard to the recklessness test, there will have to be a realistic prospect of conviction, and it will have to be in the public interest. It would not be in the public interest to prosecute people who were perfectly innocent and who could have failed to appreciate the effect of their statements. My hon. Friend made the important point that perhaps we have become a bit too fixated on the length of time for detention, rather than concentrating on the process. He said that he would have been happy with 90 days, if not longer, provided that he was reassured about the scrutiny process. I was interested in the way in which he put that argument. He asked for an assurance that 28 days would not be the norm, and that it would be a maximum. I am happy to give him that assurance. That provision will be subject to regular review.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) made an excellent speech, in which she clearly showed that she will not be the recipient of the gold challenge cup for Blairite loyalism, and that she is an active, intelligent—[Interruption.] No, I have not won it either. I have the ultra-loyalist cup for being a member of a Labour Government. My hon. Friend is an active, engaged Member who has taken these issues extremely seriously. She raised important issues about safeguards for university lecturers and librarians. The Bill does contain safeguards, but I have no doubt that she will continue to follow up that issue. Her passionate advocacy of the rights of her constituents was greatly appreciated.
	I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), and the way in which he expressed his sincere concern for the security of his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) also supported the Bill, and emphasised the new complexity and the evils of terrorism that we face. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) gave a clear and cogent explanation of the difficulties of obtaining evidence, which brought something extra to the debate. I was also grateful for his expertise in challenging Liberal Democrat Members on the question of detention.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made a very moving speech in which he set out some of the difficulties that we have grappled with, and recognised the integrity of all the parties. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) welcomed the changes that have been made to the Bill. I am happy to reassure him about the massive extra investment that we have put into the security services to strengthen our intelligence capacity and capability. He mentioned intercept evidence, and we will continue to keep that matter under review, as I know that it is of concern right across the House.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) again raised some of the issues that he raised yesterday. I can reassure him that this is not about gesture politics. The measure on offences preparatory to terrorism is really important. On direct and indirect incitement, we do not have indirect incitement on the statute book at the moment. Also, there are differences between the terrorism that faces us now and the terrorism that we have faced in the past. Certainly the emergence of suicide bombers is something that we have not seen in the past, and it presents a real challenge for us to deal with.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) asked for further information and briefing. As I have said, I think that the papers provided by Andy Hayman were extremely useful—
	It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [ 26 October].
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together motions 2 and 3.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

UN Millennium Development Goals

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8137/05, Commission Communication on Policy Coherence for Development: Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), No. 8138/05, Commission Communication on Speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals—the European Union's contribution, and No. 8139/05, Commission Communication on Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals—Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness; and supports the Government's view welcoming the EU's recognition that its non-aid policies have an important impact on developing countries' prospects for growth and development, including attaining the MDGs; welcoming EU Member States' commitments to double annual EU aid to all developing countries by 2010, with at least 50 per cent. of the agreed increase going to Africa, and to achieving the 0.7 per cent. ODA/GNI target by 2015; and welcoming agreements on increased aid effectiveness under the Paris Declaration, untying of aid, trade-related assistance, multilateral debt relief and innovative financing in line with the outcomes of the UN Millennium Review Summit to take stock of progress towards the MDGs.

European Information Society for Growth and Employment

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 9758/05, Commission Communication: i2010—A European Information Society for Growth and Employment; and supports the Government view welcoming the objectives of the Commission's i2010 Strategy and endorses the Government's work, during its Presidency of the EU, to identify and agree on the respective responsibilities of all players and the most important actions they need to undertake to ensure that i2010 makes a real contribution to the Lisbon objective to make Europe 'the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010'.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the Plant Breeder's Rights (Discontinuation of Prior Use Exemption) Order 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 2726) dated 3rd October 2005 and the Supply of Relevant Veterinary Medicinal Products Order 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 2751), dated 4th October 2005, be referred to Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING (KENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Greg Clark: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of local government finance in Kent. I am grateful to the Minister of State for being here at the end of what has been a busy week for all of us, and to my hon. Friends for joining me for this important discussion. I do not intend to use this opportunity to excoriate the Government to make us all feel better. Instead, I want to take the opportunity to make some serious points, and to invite the Minister to reflect further on some of the pressures that my and my hon. Friends' constituents face when the budget settlement, on which Ministers are consulting, is finalised.
	People get the wrong idea about Kent. Because it is close to London, in the south-east of England and has beautiful countryside and historic towns and cities, such as the one that I am proud to represent, they assume that we are universally affluent, with no social or economic problems or real worries. That is far from the case, however. Even Tunbridge Wells has some areas where deprivation is as extreme as in other places that are more renowned for their levels of social deprivation. A charity in my constituency that does fantastic work in one of the most deprived areas of the county has even had to take the name Tunbridge Wells off its letterhead, because its experience was that when looking for donors and applying for grants, people turned a blind eye and assumed that there was no possible need to help the poor and vulnerable in Tunbridge Wells. That is not the case.
	Kent is more surprising than many in the outside world realise. In terms of deprivation, for example, 12 per cent. of Kent constituents are wholly dependent on benefits—a massive figure. Kent has 5.6 per cent. of all the looked-after children in the country, which is twice the national average. It is important that we give the best possible service to those young people.
	Far from being an area in which proximity to Europe and London has resulted in jobs galore with high productivity and salaries, we lag behind in knowledge work. For example, only 13 per cent. of people in Kent are employed in the knowledge industries—only just over half the level in south-east England as a whole, which is 24 per cent. Areas of deprivation are therefore scattered across the county.
	The case that I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends want to make to the Minister is not one of special party political pleading, but for a review of the situation in Kent. As the Minister considers the funding settlement, I want to commend such a review to him for five reasons.
	First, deprivation and trends in deprivation in Kent should be considered. Sadly, deprivation in Kent is deteriorating compared with other parts of the country. Between 1991 and 2001, on all the key indices of deprivation, it has shown a marked decline. In Kent, the number of pupils in the areas of greatest deprivation is increasing, which is the opposite of the pattern across the country whereby growth in pupil numbers tends to be in the more prosperous areas. No doubt there are various reasons for that, but it is a fact. Because there is a uniformity of decline in socio-economic indicators, it is particularly important that Government funding keeps up with the facts.
	We know the indices of deprivation. They are very clear in the 2001 census, and yet the Government persist in allocating funds not on the basis of that census, which is already nearly five years old, but on the basis of the 1991 census, which is almost a generation out of date. People in my constituency, especially young people, should be given their fair share—no more than that. If the Government persist in using the 1991 census, a whole generation will have passed their lives as children without the care and support that they might expect if the Government were up to date.

John Stanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that given the level of deprivation to which he has referred, it is unjustifiable that whereas when the Government came to office Kent council tax payers were contributing a quarter of local government expenditure, eight years later they are being asked to shoulder more than a third? Is that not grossly unfair to them?

Greg Clark: I agree with my right hon. Friend, who makes his point with characteristic force. The position is particularly unjust in view of the fact that the statistics relating to Kent match those relating to other areas that have been treated more generously. My constituents, and those of my right hon. Friend, feel let down by the Government.
	The second factor is our ageing population. As we know, the population throughout the country is ageing, but in Kent that is happening with particular force. In the next 15 years, there will be 56 per cent. more people over 85 living in Kent. We know the reasons for that. People have always moved out of London to the home counties, especially to seaside resorts, to retire. A problem that affects the country as a whole affects Kent particularly severely. Yet again, however, the funding formula does not afford my constituents and Kent county council the fairness that has applied to other parts of the country. The average payment for an elderly person in the London boroughs is over £1,600 a week; the figure in Kent is £630. That is a massive difference, which cannot be explained by the cost of accommodation and services. Paradoxically, we in Kent are given much less money with which to look after our elderly people although wage pressures and property costs are as high as in other parts of the south-east.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but the position is even worse than that. Many elderly people from London are in Kentish homes. Absurdly, there may be two elderly people side by side, one of whom is receiving more than twice as much Government funding as the other although they are in nursing or residential homes at the same cost.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. My constituents are often bewildered to find that they cannot obtain places in Kent care homes and must move miles away to Hastings or the Medway towns, because the Kent homes are full of people being funded much more generously by London boroughs.
	There is a further paradox. Many people who move to Kent after retirement start off with a reasonable level of resources enabling them to look after themselves, but run through those resources as they get older, especially as care home costs increase. Because they have become resident in Kent, the Kent council tax payers end up footing the bill. A number of anomalies combine to produce a very unfair position.
	The third factor that makes Kent a special case is the particular burden that we bear for the care of asylum seekers. It is appropriate that Kent, as the gateway to Europe and, in many respects, the rest of the world, should extend the warmest possible courtesies and welcome to those who come to our shores as refugees, and Kent county council has a record second to none for so doing, but that comes at a price. It is important that council tax payers who happen to be in Kent, which happens to be the gateway, are properly recompensed for that.
	I am afraid that the system of obtaining what is only reasonable reimbursement of asylum costs from the Government has proved tortuous. It has taken hours of the time of Kent county council officers and cabinet members and resulted in less than satisfactory settlements that have ended up being compromises. For example, claims for 2003–04 have only recently been settled, and there is an outstanding bill of £4.5 million for 2004–05. That introduces, for a social services department that is one of the best in Britain, a damaging degree of instability. It is difficult to plan for excellent provision if it is unclear for what part, if any, the Government will pick up the bill. It is important that Kent county council should benefit from some certainty and stability in the funding of asylum costs.
	The fourth area in which Kent has been relatively poorly treated is education. We have some of the best schools in the country and many of my constituents have moved to Kent because of the quality of its education. It is important for us to support our teachers and head teachers in their work. The Government's most recent regulations include a requirement for 10 per cent. of teachers' contact hours to be set aside for what is called PPA—planning, preparation and assessment. To be fair to the Government, some financial provision has been made across the country to allow for that. Kent, however, has fallen short of what is required yet again. We have received an average of 3 per cent. less funding for work force reform than the country at large. For an average-sized secondary school, that means a shortfall in funding of £100,000 a year. I know from talking to head teachers in my constituency that that is a huge sum, representing the cost of nearly three teachers. We all know how important it is to ensure that our children continue to be well educated.
	Having spent time during the recess sitting in the back of classrooms and observing the work of teachers in my constituency, I saw first hand just what a strain it is for head teachers to have to arrange for these periods of preparation without the necessary resources to bring in cover or extra teachers. It has put heads and teachers in an invidious position, which should not be the case when the rest of the country has been treated more generously.
	Finally, there is infrastructure. Many of my hon. Friends have experienced, and continue to experience, the pressures that growth can cause to the infrastructure in their constituencies. As it happens, Kent incorporates two of the Government's prime growth areas for residential development—the Thames Gateway and the area around Ashford. That places considerable burdens on the infrastructure. While it is true to say that some financial provision will eventually follow, Kent county councillors maintain that the Government have been niggling in the amount allocated and there is also the important issue of timing.
	Eventually, the increased population will, of course, bring with it greater resources in the form of Government grants and council tax. If we are to proceed rationally, the infrastructure should be laid down in advance of people arriving in our county. Roads must be built before people need to use them and schools need to be opened before others are full. That means often running at below capacity as we build up towards higher capacity. The Government's funding allocation mechanisms compensate for population when it is there, but do not anticipate population movements. We are sure to find over the months and years ahead that schools and roads will be in the wrong place. That will occasion expenditure that will have to come from the county council's own resources, as it is not compensated for in the Government's funding formula.
	So there are five specific, one might say technical reasons—none of them, I contend, are pungent party political reasons—why the settlement in Kent should be looked at carefully to ensure that it reflects these cost pressures. Sadly, that appears not to be happening. My hon. Friends will recall that when the last local government funding settlement was entered into, Kent was a big loser. Ultimately, Kent council tax payers lost £55 million. I am aware that a system of ceilings and floors will mitigate the effect of that settlement over time, but ultimately, it will cost every council tax payer in Kent in the region of £100 a year.
	Because of the failure to update the socio-economic census data, which are now 15 years out of date, another £9 million has been added to Kent council tax payers' costs. It is estimated that the Government's latest proposals could result in a further relative loss of up to £33 million for Kent council tax payers. So, altogether, Kent is losing out by £100 million a year, compared with other parts of the country. For reasons that I have outlined, we have particular pressures relating to some of our most vulnerable people. This is not a situation that the Government should be proud of, and I hope that they will reflect further during this consultation period on whether it can be addressed.
	It is not that Kent county council is profligate, wasteful or ineffective; quite the opposite. It is one of the United Kingdom's flagship councils. It has consistently achieved a comprehensive performance assessment rating of "excellent", and it has been especially commended for its financial prudence. It has gone beyond the Gershon targets in terms of savings made. In every respect, this is an excellent council. Over the years, its leadership has been responsible and has been prepared to engage in rational discussions with the Government. Indeed, Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart is one of the most respected local government figures in Britain today. [Interruption.] The Minister nods his assent. Sir Sandy's successor, Mr. Paul Carter, has a distinguished record in education. He knows at first hand the pressures that our schools face, and I am sure that he will continue that responsible record.
	Given that Kent county council is excellent, economical, effective, efficient and well led, it ought to be listened to when it makes—as our colleagues on it are doing—a reasonable and reasoned case to the Government. I am delighted to have had this opportunity to raise these issues with the Minister, and I hope that he will give them full consideration.

Roger Gale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on securing a debate on a subject of incredible importance to Kent Members of Parliament. It has got to be wrong that one of the most beautiful counties in the country—a county that is the garden of England, and which has phenomenal natural resources and proximity to the capital city—should also host some of the highest levels of social deprivation not just in the south-east, but in the country. East Kent, Thanet and parts of Dover—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser) is unable to be here this afternoon, but I am sure that he would agree with me—host levels of deprivation that people in the metropolis would probably find hard to grasp. Much of that deprivation has been imported. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, it is not the result of bad local government—quite the reverse. As he also said, Kent is a flagship council—it has been performing superbly since Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart took over what was indubitably a basket-case and turned it round. The economy of the county has, in the past dozen or so years, come on in leaps and bounds.
	Nevertheless, what we face, and have faced continually in the 22 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament, is an influx of social problems. Throughout the 1980s, east Kent, and particularly Margate in my constituency, suffered from what became known as the dole-on-sea syndrome, as the unemployed from around the country and Ireland came to Thanet to live in seaside hotels and guesthouses, on the dole. As that problem was solved, what has been described as a wave of asylum seekers hit Kent. Dover and Thanet in particular have borne the brunt of that and of the social, cultural, educational and medical problems that arrived with people from some of the most deprived places in Europe and, indeed, the world. That has placed an enormous strain on the county.
	In tandem with that, there has been an influx of retiring people, many from the east end of London—people who spent their honeymoons in Margate 30, 40 or even 50 years ago and wanted to retire to the dream of a seaside home. They are now living in genteel and, sometimes, less-than-genteel and rather sad poverty. In many cases, one partner in the relationship has died and the other is left on very strained resources. Those people, I have to say to the Minister, are the ones who end up running out of money and being supported, not by the east London boroughs, not by Tower Hamlets, not by Islington, but by Kent county council.
	Kent is paying for the placements in retirement homes, but we have seen a diminution in the available care. Homes have closed in their dozens because there is not the funding in the east of the county to make them commercially viable—they are, after all, businesses. In the west and north of the county, homes have thrived, but not by making provision for the elderly of Kent. Those homes are, as my hon. Friend rightly says, accommodating clientele being paid for by the London boroughs at £1,600 a week in funding from central Government. The Minister has to be able to explain to us, the representatives of these constituents, why a granny in Kent is worth a third of a granny coming from Islington. That is what we are talking about. Central Government gives money to Islington, for example, and the council buys space in Kent because it cannot be bothered to make provision for its own elderly, and still pockets a healthy balance.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman recall Kent county council closing old people's homes about six years ago?

Roger Gale: I am not talking about Kent county council's old people's homes, which, by modern seaside standards, are simply not viable. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go down that route, I can tell him that Campfield, in my constituency, is about to be closed by the county council because it cannot meet the standards required under regulations. That has been the case way down the line. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that somehow the county council should be able to keep open homes that do not meet today's modern standards or offer the desired facilities, I have to say that I do not agree with him. If he is saying that Kent ought to be refurbishing, rebuilding, modernising and reopening these homes, I might just agree with him, if Kent had the money to do it.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman argues in favour of the Care Standards Act 2000, which I supported—but which the Opposition did not—for the reasons that he now presents. The home closures of six or seven years ago took place because Kent no longer wanted to be a provider, but merely a commissioner and purchaser. The closures had nothing to do with quality.

Roger Gale: That is incorrect, as there were severe implications about the quality of the homes involved. Those Opposition Members who know something about the matter did oppose elements of the 2000 Act—I have to be careful, as I chaired the Bill in Standing Committee—but on the basis that taking away an en suite lavatory from an elderly person merely to provide an extra square metre of floor space was a nonsense. To be frank, the elderly person involved was not likely to get out of bed and play football, so a lavatory was of more use than the space. There are many other examples that I could give the House.
	The Registered Homes Act 1984 led to improved standards in both local authority and private residential homes by the end of the decade. The provision then was good, but lack of money has made it impossible to maintain that standard. The result now is that a granny in Kent is worth a third of one in Islington— why?
	Another difficulty is the problem of dumped cared-for children. In the social services they are known, rather revoltingly, as "Friday afternoon children". When, for emergency reasons, a borough in west London has to place a child on a Friday afternoon, he or she is sent to Thanet. No provision is made for education or medical care and there is no consultation with the county council. There is no advance preparation at all. Does the Minister think that that is satisfactory?
	Kent county council's Thanet report spells out what happens, in stark terms. The young people involved are taken out of their environment in London and removed from their friends, family, extended family and school. They are taken from the familiar area in which they were brought up and dumped in a place where they have no sense of ownership at all. Is it then surprising that they resort to daubing graffiti and to engaging in antisocial behaviour, vandalism and truancy? Of course it is not.
	Best practice in social services says that those young people should be placed as close to home as possible, yet they arrive in Kent with no provision having been made for their education or medical care, and they receive no attention worth speaking of from social services. No resources follow them to provide the policing and other back-up that they need. They are simply dumped.I have spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who has responsibility for these matters, and asked for a moratorium. To date, nothing has happened, even though the Thanet report has been on her desk for months. The cost incurred in looking after these dumped children is another one that the Government are not meeting.
	I come now to the question of asylum costs. Opposition Members in Kent have fought long and hard for the money that the Government acknowledge that the county should have to meet the costs incurred by asylum seekers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, we have just about cleared the slate up to 2004, although that has involved rather more give than take on our part. The Home Office agreed the figures—grudgingly—and has finally shelled out for the costs incurred up to 2004.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Roger Gale: In a moment.
	A further £4.3 million is outstanding, for the period between April 2004 to April 2005. Can we have the money, please?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman refers to the grudging way that the Government have reimbursed Kent county council for its expenditure in respect of asylum-seeker children. I want to emphasise that the county has spent that money on children, as adults are dispersed around the UK. When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary, no money at all was reimbursed to the local authority. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that?

Roger Gale: What I cannot recall is when the hon. Gentleman came to the House, but I have a clear recall of other matters.I recall clearly saying to a Home Office Minister in the summer of 1997, on good advice from Kent police, that a wave of asylum seekers from the Czech and Slovak Republics was about to hit Kent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I drove from Kent to the Home Office, demanded to see the Minister and warned him, on the strength of the information given to us by Kent police, that that was about to happen. The Home Office did nothing about it. When my right hon. and learned Friend was Home Secretary asylum figures were falling. The problem started in 1997 and worsened. I will take no lectures whatsoever from the hon. Gentleman on that score.

Jonathan R Shaw: I would not want to appear to be lecturing the hon. Gentleman. For his information I came to the House in 1997. Before that I worked for 10 years for Kent social services, so I have first-hand knowledge. I knew that the local authority was not reimbursed by one single penny from the then Government. His idea is that when we arrived in office in 1997, that was somehow a watershed for asylum seekers. Does he recall the conflict in Kosovo and the conflicts that have arisen around the world? It is not just Kent and this country that have seen an increase in the numbers of asylum seekers, but many countries across the world.

Roger Gale: I am prepared to give way again if the hon. Gentleman would like to place on the record—in his words, not mine—the number of asylum seekers resident in Kent in the spring of 1997 and in the spring of 2000. The costs bear no relation to each other. The costs to Kent of asylum seekers prior to 1997 were minimal.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) has made the point for us—the big wave came as a result of Kosovo, which was two years later, in 1999.

Roger Gale: I hope and believe that perhaps the hon. Gentleman's constituents and his colleagues' constituents may listen to or read the debate, and may then know from the record how they are letting down their constituents in Kent, our county. With respect, the hon. Gentleman did nothing whatsoever to help to secure the funding. Kent was owed £14 million by central Government and had to fight for every penny of it, but still did not get every penny of it.

Jonathan R Shaw: On what does the hon. Gentleman base his belief that I did nothing to assist Kent county council?

Roger Gale: Simply on the strength of the information and representation made to us by the leader of Kent county council. If the hon. Gentleman can produce the letters that he has written to Ministers asking for payment, I should be delighted to see them and even more delighted to acknowledge that perhaps he played a tiny part in securing the money. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman's Government have for years failed to pay. If he made representations, they were not effective. We waited a long time for the money. Perhaps he can now explain why we are still waiting for the £4.3 million for the period from April 2004 to April 2005. Why has that money not been paid? That is probably a question that the Minister should answer. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is at least trying to play some sort of bat and I only wish that one or two more of his colleagues would give him a hand.
	I shall not speak for much longer because other colleagues wish to participate. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells referred to the development that is being imposed on Kent. I say "imposed" advisedly, because the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, having been prepared to see asylum seekers, cared-for children and grannies dumped in Kent, now wants to dump housing in Kent. The garden of England will soon be the backyard of England—

Paul Clark: Nonsense.

Roger Gale: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to visit Herne Bay in my constituency and see how green fields are being built over without any infrastructure to support that building. Look at how many houses have been given planning consent; look at the lack of primary and secondary school places; look at how children who cannot get into the single secondary school in the town are bussed, at Kent county council's expense, halfway round the county to get their education; look at the lack of road infrastructure; look at the fact that the Government have failed to give priority to the vital east Kent approach road that might just help Thanet, the area with the highest level of deprivation in the south-east; look at the shortage of doctors; look at the growing shortage of water; look at the lack of sewerage infrastructure for all those houses, and tell me where the money will come from. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was right in his intervention earlier. If we are to build houses—and I accept that people have to have homes—we have to make provision for primary and secondary education, and transport and medical care, before and not after the event.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said that when the Conservatives left office, Kent was bearing the costs of 25 per cent. of expenditure, but that that figure had now risen to 35 per cent. One of the reasons for that rise—[Interruption.] I would love to have the Minister's attention, although I know that he is being well briefed by his Kent colleagues. The fact is that there is no justification for the Government not basing Kent's grant on at least the most recent census figures. It is nothing short of a scandal that Kent is being short-changed because of a grant based on census figures that are very nearly 15 years out of date.
	My hon. Friend said that he would be moderate and modest and seek to persuade the Minister. He was, and I hope that he has. I feel much less moderate about this because I have watched people suffering—some of the poorest and most deprived, the very people that this Government claim they want to help but do nothing for—as a result of being cheated by this Government moving money from the south-east to the north and their own heartlands. That has gone on long enough. It is time for the Government to recognise that our beautiful county and its flagship county council deserve better than the shoddy treatment that they are getting at present.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate. I   congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on the measured way in which he set the scene, although, inevitably, some of us will feel more strongly about such issues than others. He described the problem as the perception that Kent is particularly affluent, which is the issue at the heart of this debate.
	We do not have to take my hon. Friend's word on that problem because, in February, when I complained about the funding for Sevenoaks on the local government finance report, the Minister's predecessor told me that it was an affluent area and that was why we had been badly treated. If the present Minister cannot recall the basis of my complaint, I shall tell him, because it was very simple. In terms of the increase in per capita funding since 1998 for all the district councils, county councils and police authorities in England, Sevenoaks was 424th out of 424 for percentage change. We were the worst treated. In fact, we had no increase at all and were among four or five councils that had actually been cut in per capita terms.
	The House does not have to believe my hon. Friend. The Minister himself said that our funding had been cut because Sevenoaks was an affluent area. It is true, of course, that some constituencies are more affluent than others, but it is equally true that there are serious pockets of deprivation in every constituency, including mine. Parts of north Sevenoaks, and especially in the town of Swanley, can match any of the deprived areas about which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke so eloquently. The problem with the funding allocation is that it does not properly reflect the serious pockets of deprivation that exist alongside some of the more affluent areas. It does not respect the fact that all our district councils and the county council have to provide the same basic services as councils in areas that are better treated by the Government—perhaps in the north. We all need the same basic services, so it is wrong that councils are treated unequally.
	My hon. Friends made some powerful points about the care homes scandal, asylum costs and so on. I have three short points. The first is that the Government must deal with the widespread perception, or allegation, that they are covertly switching funding from south to north. The Minister may try to deny it—he may even admit it—but it would be for the good health of the debate generally that, if there is such a policy, it is made explicit and Ministers have the guts to say that they are moving money from southern districts to northern metropolitan districts or the larger conurbations. If Ministers are doing that, they should say so.
	It is remarkable that if you look at the league table, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the list of 424 district councils, county councils and police authorities to which I referred—you may not find that your local authority is anywhere near the top of the table, where there is a strong north-east, north-west and midlands flavour. Few southern councils appear there. If the Government, through their decisions about annual local government allocations, are moving money from south to north that is their decision. They are the Government so they are free to do that, but they should at least be explicit about it and accept what they are doing, so that they can be judged accordingly by my constituents and, doubtless, by the constituents of the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and for Gillingham (Paul Clark).
	My second point is about London weighting. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I return to that point, as I have been making it constantly since 1997. London weighting is a shambles. Time and again, I have pointed out that police officers can resign from the Kent force to join the Metropolitan police and immediately earn an extra £3,000 a year, due to the effect of London weighting, but remain in the same housing in west Kent. Nurses in our hospitals in west and north Kent can transfer across the line to work in a London hospital and gain London weighting.
	The arrangements are different for each public service, but in each case that I raised, because the arguments were so overwhelming, Ministers responded—I must be fair to them about that—but only in an ad hoc way. The Kent health authority was given additional money to deal with the problem. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) accepted that there was a problem and gave a one-off allocation to deal with it.
	Two years later, the same thing happened in relation to the police settlement. Kent police authority was given additional funding to tackle the problem, which was more acute in the west Kent than the north Kent area: in Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks and Tonbridge, we lost about 30 officers in a single year. Ministers had to respond, but they did so in a completely ad hoc way, from service to service.
	If we are talking about joined-up government, someone must consider London and south-east weighting regionally. It is absurd that some weightings in London extend outwards to Hampshire or parts of Essex, but not to Kent. It is absurd that some people are eligible in some public services, but not in others. The whole thing must be considered more coherently and those of us on the fringe of London should not have to beg each time for additional resources in respect of individual funding streams. The whole of Kent should be classified properly, with London, as a high-cost area because that is exactly what it is.
	My third and final point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells touched on, is that I am quite sure, having served my constituents for the past eight years, that we are not getting our fair crack of the whip in terms of spending on infrastructure. The Minister has a north-western constituency.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman says that Kent is not getting its fair share. I remind him that he wrote a letter to the Sevenoaks Chronicle in 1999, when he had been the Member of Parliament for the area for two years. He said:
	"Now Kent has asked me to complain to the Minister about their allocation under the latest round of schools funding. How can I honestly go persuade the Minister all over again, when we haven't even started spending the £1 million he allocated in March 1998?"
	Does he remember that letter?

Michael Fallon: I am not sure which £1 million the hon. Gentleman refers to, but to continue on the theme—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) wants to seek to catch my eye, and perhaps he ought to make those points if and when he does.

Michael Fallon: I should be happy if the hon. Gentleman can refresh my memory about which £1 million he was referring to. I think that I can now recall the £1 million. I think that it was the capital grant in respect of Riverhead school. I do not know whether he can confirm that. I think that the long delay in getting a decision on the siting of Riverhead infant school cost £1 million. Yes, I complain about bureaucratic delays, and I am sure that he complains about them, too.
	I return to the point that I was making about infrastructure before I was interrupted. It is striking that in regions such as the north-west, part of which the Minister represents, it is almost impossible to go from one town to another without travelling on some sort of motorway—the M60 or whatever. We in west Kent still seem to have much of the infrastructure that was placed there in the 1920s or the 1930s—for example, the single-carriageway A21, along which my constituents must travel if they want to go to Pembury hospital or further south. The railway system is still essentially unmodernised from many years back.
	I still feel that we do not get our fair share of the necessary capital infrastructure that our region needs. It is an important region. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet spoke of the beauty of Kent and the attractiveness of our county, but it is also a key part of the economic region. It is one of the wealth-creating areas of our country. I do not think that we yet get the attention from Ministers that we and our constituents deserve.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells on securing this debate on local government funding. We do not get our fair allocation of funding, and improvements to the system can be made. There is a general perception that Kent is losing out compared with the rest of the country, and I am sure that the Minister will do his best to correct that when he replies.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on securing it. He made an excellent thought-provoking contribution and I am sure that it will read well in the royal spa town, which I know well.
	I was born in the county of Kent and have lived there all my life. I have worked in most of the different parts of the county, so I hope that I can add something to the debate. I want to say something about the other side of the complaints that we have heard from Conservative Members. Several of the Conservative Members in the Chamber will remember a debate that was held in February 1997 when they attacked the county council and went on about its various visits and trips abroad. That was a disgraceful assault on a local authority that could not defend itself. There were no Labour Kent Members at the time. I have read the transcript of that debate and wonder if the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) remembers complaining about money being cut from his children's school.

Julian Brazier: In that particular year, Kent county council spent £5 million on computer equipment and furniture for the education department's offices. The computer equipment did not result in any job savings and administrative manpower continued to increase. Although £5 million was spent on furnishings and equipment for offices, there were classrooms without enough chairs in them.

Jonathan R Shaw: That was the first time that Kent's local authority had spent more than its standard spending assessment. In the years during which I went to schools in Kent, it spent consistently much less than its SSA.
	I am delighted to talk about schools in Kent. They were underfunded for years, and it was not until the administration of 1993 to 1997 that they started getting resources. Let me address the area of my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who is in the Chamber. He knows that in our area, the Malling school, Aylesford school and Holmesdale technology college are being rebuilt at a cost of about £50 million. The total amount of private finance initiative money in Kent is about £80 million. Aylesford school, which the right hon. Gentleman knows well, is a series of huts. There was no prospect of getting that school refurbished to a modern standard with the levels of capital spend present under the Conservative Government.

John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must do his homework. Aylesford school received a substantial capital grant from the Conservative Government because it was one of the first schools to achieve grant-maintained status. It received major investment from the Conservative Government.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am well aware of the building. Grant-maintained status gave a little bit to a few schools, but there was little hope of the school getting the real refurbishment that it needed. When we got into office, the Tory Government had been spending £800 million a year on school buildings. That is quite a lot of money when one thinks about it, but not when one considers that that figure is £5.6 billion this year. Such funding means not that there is just one small capital project in Aylesford school, but that the whole school can be rebuilt. The contrast is stark. Money is being spent on schools throughout the county. There are now more teachers and classroom assistants in Kent and they are better paid than before.
	The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) talked about the police service and leakage to the Metropolitan police. Such things occur from time to time, but the Government responded positively to that situation. They got little thanks for that, just as there was little thanks for the £1 million for the hon. Gentleman's school at Riverhead. The Government gave that money and that has happened time and again throughout the whole county.

Roger Gale: Come on.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman might say that, but the three secondary schools in my borough that are being rebuilt now are not a figment of my imagination. There was never any money available for such rebuilding under the Conservative Government, so I certainly will come on and tell him how much money is being spent in Kent.

Roger Gale: I did not want to intervene because I spoke at great length. Nevertheless, the "Come on" related to the police. The hon. Gentleman knows that Kent police are in dire financial straits. He knows that Thanet and Canterbury have lost policemen to the Medway towns to make up for those who are going into the Met. He knows that there are no special constables in parts of the county because they have been taken into the regular force to make up the numbers that we have lost to London.

Jonathan R Shaw: Kent police have more constables than ever before. The Medway police force is at full strength. It has not been before. The decision to allocate police officers is not for politicians but an operational matter for the chief constable. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it should not be, let him say so. We have more than 100 police community support officers. The chief constable supports that. The hon. Gentleman knows that the chief constable will bid for a further 500 over the next two years. We have investment in our health service. Kent was one of the first counties to meet the three-month target for cataract operations. That is what is happening in our hospitals, schools and police service. Each service is increasing and each is in a better shape than it was when we got into power in 1997.
	As for our roads, I recently read in the paper that there is a "Huge boost in Kent for transport". It states:
	"Kent received a cash boost of . . . £17 million."
	I think that is from the Thanet Extra, a paper from the area of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), dated 16 September 2005. It goes on to say:
	"Kent has emerged as the biggest winner in a Government cash handout to local authorities to help them develop schemes to improve traffic blackspots, invest in public transport schemes and make roads safer.
	Kent county council is to get £16.9 million to spend between 2006 and 2011 after originally being told it could only expect about £6.6 million."
	Kent has done very well.

Greg Clark: I was not in the House in 1997, but the hon. Gentleman was. Does he recall that the A21, between Tonbridge and Lamberhurst, was scheduled for imminent conversion to a dual carriageway? That project was cancelled within months of this Government coming into power.

Jonathan R Shaw: There was a long list of road proposals at the time, but the money had never been allocated to them. One of them was the M20 widening, which caused so much blight in my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. The Chancellor in 1996 admitted that there were no resources for those projects, and they did not go forward. A Government can have a list as long as their arm, but they must have the funding for those roads. Otherwise, they are deceiving constituents. We have done well on infrastructure.
	Again, in my area, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling campaigned for many years to get a special surface put on the M20. It would have cost millions, and the Conservative Government refused every time. Their policy was that it was not possible to have quieter road surfaces unless it was a new road or it was being widened, but our council, with his support, managed to get them to change that policy. We got the quieter surface, which helped our constituents. That is another road improvement that has assisted our constituents.

Julian Brazier: I merely wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is listening to what he says. In the period that I was in the House before he was—those years of Conservative Government immediately beforehand—the extra sections on the M20 were built. During that time, huge investment was committed to the Thanet way, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and I enjoy. It was completed shortly after Labour came into office, but the bulk of the building was done under the Conservatives, when the money was committed to it. Since Labour came into office, I cannot think of even a bypass that has been built in Kent—and the hon. Gentleman talks about resurfacing.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am sorry to keep picking on the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. The Leybourne bypass is being constructed as we speak. Many road and infrastructure projects have occurred in that period. I told the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) the amount of money that Kent county council has received. That was only to tackle road congestion and public transport. There is also the £70 million that the council received. It said in its press statement that it got more than anyone else in the country. On roads, public transport, schools, police and hospitals, what we heard from Conservative Members was that Kent has not been getting its fair share whereas that simply is not the case.
	I look round my constituency and see the investment that has taken place, such as new £2 million health centres in Snodland and in Larkfield. That money is being invested in our communities and making a huge difference to the quality of life of the people whom we represent.

John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman's comments on hospitals will be read with disbelief by my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain to the House why the important new district hospital for Pembury, covering the whole west Kent area, which was at an advanced stage at the end of the term of the previous Conservative Government, is still no further on in terms of starting construction, eight years later.

Jonathan R Shaw: I know the Kent and Sussex hospital very well. I used to take adults with learning disabilities when they sadly had accidents to the hospital when I worked in that area. The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong when he talks about an advanced stage. The site had not been purchased and the money had not been allocated. What does he mean by "advanced stage"? There was no provider and plans had not been worked up. It was not at an advanced stage. It was a pipe dream. It took a Labour Government to allocate resources. We have the largest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. There has been investment in the Maidstone hospital, the Medway maritime hospital and other hospitals throughout the county.
	Waiting lists have been mentioned. People had to wait for 18 months when Labour was elected to office. This year, it is will be down to six months. The waiting will continue to come down. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like this, but my constituents have seen the investment put in to my constituency and the huge difference that it has made to their lives. Despite the disgraceful attack upon a local authority that could not defend itself in February 1997, the infrastructure, resources and public services of the county are in a much better state now. I know because I worked in Kent for 10 years and I have lived in it for all my life. Public services are in much better shape now. I and my hon. Friends throughout the county are proud of that.

Julian Brazier: I have been listening with interest to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). I intended to be brief but the hon. Gentleman has provoked me to speak at slightly greater length than I intended.
	The distinction should be made very clear between current and capital spending. I shall comment on what the hon. Gentleman said about capital spending. About 95 per cent. of the examples that he gave involved capital expenditure whereas the basic submission of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), apart from the remarks that he made at the end of his contribution, related almost entirely to the problems in current spending. Yes, there are some problems of infrastructure and I shall start by saying something about that, but the main issue is the ever-tightening garrotte on the level of current spending—rate support grant—available to Kent county council for people in old people's homes, children in care and so on.
	On the capital side, the hon. Gentleman really must find out about Kent's road programme. The last Government invested a fortune in Kent's roads—the building of the extra sections of the M20 for the link-up with the channel tunnel, the dualling of the Thanet Way, in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet played such a vital role over all those years, and which was finished about 18 months after the present Government took office, and the dualling of the A2 extension of the M2. There was one programme after another, all carried out by the Conservative Government. Under the present Government, there has been virtually no capital expenditure, apart from the odd tiny bypass in the road programme, and money available for road repairs has declined.
	There are other areas that I could challenge. I shall mention one on the capital side. The hon. Gentleman made great play of investment in the NHS. Certainly, a great deal of money has been invested in new hospitals in other parts of the country, but it is in east Kent that there were two and three-day queues in casualty, after the Government took office. There was a two-page spread in The Sun about people who spent three days on beds in the Kent and Canterbury hospital accident and emergency unit. That happened on the present Government's watch, not under the previous Government.
	The burden of the debate and almost the whole of the submission from my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) was on current spending and the tourniquet that the Government are applying to the support grant for current spending in the county of Kent. I remember arguing once with a group of people in the Tea Room—I have some friends in the Labour party, and I count the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford as one of them—about whether it is worse to be poor in an area neighbouring better-off areas or to be poor in a poor area. The answer must be that it is much worse to be poor in south-east England than in a relatively deprived area, for several obvious reasons. One is that it is much more expensive to provide support for poor people in an area with neighbouring better-off areas, because it is a struggle to attract well-qualified people into the public services there. Another reason is that food and other basic amenities are more expensive near a better-off area.
	In east Kent we have a particular problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, in parts of east Kent and one or two other parts of Kent we have some of the worst deprivation statistics anywhere in southern England. In some wards in Thanet, the statistics are among the worst in the country. However, the fact that we are relatively close to the capital means that we have serious additional problems. Against that background, the dire figures take some explaining.
	I will not go through the equation on the funding of the elderly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells so effectively covered. I shall take the parallel equation for children in care. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet is right about the dumping of children in care in Kent, without the associated money always coming with them in knock-on areas such as education and health. Putting that to one side, how can it be right that a child in care in Kent gets from the Government £263 a week, compared with £425 in Blackpool, an area in the north of England where costs are lower, and £1,373 in a London borough such as Islington?
	Hon. Members will know that over the years I have taken a particular interest in children in care, particularly through my role in the all-party group on adoption and fostering. I am horrified at what is happening to our local social services as a result of the squeeze on funding. I shall give an example. It is no good talking about shiny new buildings and the rest of it; we are talking about current money to cover current costs. One of the effects is that almost no provision is left for the most awkward fostering cases. In the old days, special placements would have been provided, because it was acknowledged that those cases were simply too difficult for most foster parents to cope with. The money is no longer available for that. I spoke recently to foster parents who told me that several of their colleagues had given up fostering because children had been placed with them with whom they were simply incapable of dealing.
	I am obviously pursuing the matter with Kent county council social services, but the system is creaking. How can it be right that an area where costs are high gets one sixth of the funding per child of some London boroughs? Those figures are not fiction. They are in a letter that is signed by Sandy Bruce-Lockhart. It is the last letter that Sir Sandy wrote before he retired as leader of a council that everybody, from the district auditor to the people who recommended him to Her Majesty the Queen for his recent knighthood, recognises as excellent. The figures are his, not mine.
	I hope that some of our constituents will read the debate. When the Minister for Local Government replies, he can score some points about shiny new buildings and infrastructure. In making points about infrastructure, he can forget that Kent has been chosen for two of the four population growth points, and all the additional requirements that that creates. I do not believe that we have the infrastructure that we need or that we get our fair share of it. However, this evening's debate is mostly not about that.
	The debate is about the sheer unfairness of a formula which, on the first readjustment, led to an increase per capita of funding of every single member of the then Cabinet, and, for the second consecutive time—the third time in a row if one includes the decision not to update the deprivation indices from 1991–2001—resulted in Kent being among the three or four worst funded councils. That cannot be right.
	The Minister must tell us why a granny or a child in care in Kent are so much less important than their counterparts in London and other parts of the country. I look forward to his reply.

Phil Woolas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on securing the debate. I suspect that, like me, he believed that it would be a half-hour, end-of-day debate but it has turned into a full-blown, well informed discussion about Kent, its problems and successes, and its future. I therefore offer genuine congratulations to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the political and news programmes in his part of the world are taking note, because it has been a good debate that will make good television and radio.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot respond to specific points about possible changes in the formula before the local government finance settlement that is due shortly. I assure him that I have listened to his arguments and taken a serious interest in the arguments that the district, county and unitary councils in his part of the world have presented. Indeed, Kent county council is part of our working party on the social services formula reviews. Some of his points have been covered by that and I hope that he will accept that assurance.
	Let me begin with general policy and answer hon. Members' specific points afterwards. The title of the debate is "Local Government Funding (Kent)". Let me again put it on record that, whatever one says, the Government have increased local government funding in real terms by 33 per cent. I say that to remind hon. Members that we are debating the alleged or real problems of Kent in the context of a fast rising tide of funding.
	Points have been raised about the position of Tunbridge Wells and other parts of Kent. Kent is the garden of England, and it is a beautiful place. I have worked there and I know it and love it. However, when we talk about the way in which Kent has been treated, I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that we are discussing this issue in the context of an increase in funding—

Michael Fallon: It has been cut.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman says that the funding has been cut. I shall give him the figures in a moment.
	I also want to point out that the last delegation that came to see me from a county was not from a Conservative county in the south-east of England but from Labour-led Lancashire, which also feels that it is being treated the worst. I am a fair person and I approach these matters in a non-partisan way. However, Lancashire has also received increases in its budget. Of course, hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised issues on behalf of their constituents, but can we please acknowledge that there has been an increase in funding, and that these problems are relative ones? If I were tempted to be partisan, I would point out that, in the four years up to 1997, there was a real-terms reduction in the grant to local government of 7 per cent. So, fair's fair. Last year was the eighth successive year in which the Government provided local government overall with an increase in total Government grant above inflation. And it was the third year in which we were able to guarantee increases for all local authorities at least in line with inflation.
	Specific points have been raised about personal social services, and Conservative Members have been critical of the funding that is provided for local authorities' social services responsibilities. I do not deny the pressures on social services, but I want to put this in context. Spending on social services over the past 15 years—again, I am making a non-partisan point—has doubled, at a time when gross domestic product per head has increased by 50 per cent. So we are meeting a new demand, and this is a more civilised country as a result.
	Specifically on this Government's watch, we have provided some £11.5 billion this year for adult social services, which includes some £1.9 billion paid to councils as specific revenue grants. That includes the additional £100 million of non-recurrent funding to support existing older people's services, which was added to the access and systems capacity grant. Total funding for children's social services was £4.3 billion, an increase of 8 per cent. Some people would say that that is not enough, but it is a generous increase none the less.

Julian Brazier: Does the Minister not accept that there is a staggering disparity between the position in Kent and the position in London and other local authorities in regard to the per capita funding for children in care? Does he accept Sir Sandy's figures or not?

Phil Woolas: Of course, hon. Members from all parts of the country make comparisons with other parts of the country that will show their area in a less favourable light. I could show the hon. Gentleman Conservative-led councils in London that would argue that their area cost adjustment is unfair, compared with that of Kent, given the costs that they face. I could also point out Labour-led local authorities that would make the same point that he has made. Of course there is a difference in the per capita funding. I do not have the exact figures at the moment, although I might come to them later, as they are somewhere in my very extensive briefing. I accept that there are differences in the figures, and the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient in regard to the forthcoming settlement. I would plead with him, however, to the effect that it is not a sound argument to say that he should have more because other people have more, if those other people are saying, with accuracy, that they have increased costs. I shall come to the point about dispersal from London in a moment.
	There have been increases in all the areas mentioned. Resources in children's social services have increased by more than 30 per cent. in real terms since we took office.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Phil Woolas: Of course, the 30 per cent. real-terms increase has not been distributed equally across all social services authorities, but all social services authorities have had increases. Let us acknowledge that. That is an average of 2.8 per cent. a year above inflation, and further increases are planned over the 2004 spending review period. In addition, investment in child care and early years will increase by more than three quarters of a billion pounds between 2004–05 and 2007–08.
	Hon. Gentlemen have referred to the pressures facing police authorities. I must remind them, however, that we have provided substantial extra resources for policing: as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) pointed out, there have never been as many police officers in Kent. I acknowledge the real-world difficulties that the hon. Member for North Thanet pointed out, but Government support for police funding has increased by 39 per cent. since 2000.
	The figures are unprecedented. On average, police formula grant has increased by nearly 4.8 per cent., including specific grants of £766 million in 2005–06. The specific grant increase in funding direct to police forces is more than 5 per cent. Specific grants enable us to target funds where they are particularly needed. The crime fighting fund, for example, has enabled us to secure record police officer numbers. No police force has received less than a 3.75 per cent. general grant increase this year. That is substantially above police pay increases and inflation, and above-floor increases range up to 6.8 per cent. Again, the points being made by hon. Gentlemen are relative, not absolute.

Greg Clark: The Minister has dismissed the idea that relative under-performances should be corrected. But what about the absolute failure to update the census figures and to take the most recent deprivation figures? Does that qualify as an argument of which the Minister is prepared to take account?

Phil Woolas: Again, the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient in respect of the future. The argument about population figures, however, has been put to me in the past three months by shire councils of all political parties, county councils of all political parties, and metropolitan authorities of all political parties, and they cannot all be right, can they? The hon. Gentleman made a cogent case—I say that genuinely—on behalf of his constituents. I do not want to score points—actually, I do want to score points—but we are talking about a context of increasing resources and of problems being relative not absolute.
	We have had some very interesting contributions. If I could have a bit of fun, because this is the end of a heavy parliamentary week, I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for pointing out the parliamentary debate on 5 February 1997, when we had a Conservative Government and a Labour-Liberal county council. Conservative Members, some of whom are in the Chamber this evening, were blaming all the problems of people in Kent on the nasty, malicious, Labour-Liberal county council, and attributing all the good in Kent to Conservative Government policies. Now we have a situation in which Conservative Members are praising the Conservative-led Kent county council—I acknowledge that it has an excellent rating from the Audit Commission—and blaming all the problems on the Labour Government, as if in May 1997 all the issues in Kent were stood on their head. I could have some fun; indeed, I will.
	Mr. Jonathan Aitken, then Member of Parliament for South Thanet, said:
	"I congratulate my hon. Friend on his splendid recitation of the high economic crimes and misdemeanours"
	of Kent county council. Dame Peggy Fenner said:
	"It is an indescribable insult to Medway",
	describing the actions of the Labour-Liberal county council. The then Member of Parliament for Dover, Mr. David Shaw, spoke of
	"the wasteful use of staff in Kent".
	There was then a reference to
	"a wicked example of precisely what is taking place."—[Official Report, 5 February 1997; Vol. 919, c. 946–48.]

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister, because I was present at that debate and I would not take back a single word of what I said. I have already given one example of the staggering waste in the education department at a time when schools needed the money in the classrooms, but let me give two wider examples. First, we had 15 chief education officers then, and a chief education officer was paid more than the Prime Minister. Within weeks of the Conservatives' taking over, the number had fallen to six. Secondly, the council managed to spend all the reserves, apart from the legal minimum, in running up huge debts, but in the end it was squealing that it was not receiving enough rate support grant, despite a formula that was much more generous in comparison with those in other parts of the country than it is today.

Phil Woolas: The irony is obviously lost on the hon. Gentleman. I wish he would acknowledge the reality, which is that gross domestic product per capita has risen in his county, unemployment in his county has fallen and public investment in his county has risen under a Labour Government. I am not here to defend Kent county council's actions during the period concerned, although I would imagine that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggested—its spending, particularly on education, rose above the level of the standard spending assessment, and I would imagine that not one Member who is present now argued to the electorate at the time that the SSA should be reduced. But perhaps I should move on from irony, as some fell on stony ground.
	The hon. Member for North Thanet asked why people were displaced from London. That problem affects all major cities, particularly in Kent and parts of east Sussex. The reason is probably the high costs to London local authorities were they to keep the care homes in London. I know from my own constituency that, unfortunately, people with severe problems—especially mental and disability problems—have been placed in homes many miles away. I wish that that were not the case, and the Government's policy is to reverse the position, because it is better for local people to live locally.
	The hon. Gentleman cited Islington council. I am pretty sure that it is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps we can unite at this point, because, as usual, no Liberal Democrats are present. I am sure that if Islington council were spending local and national taxpayers' money on accommodation at the rate at which they would have to spend in central London, the hon. Gentleman would be lambasting it here and elsewhere.

Roger Gale: The point is that Islington's grant per elderly person, and indeed per cared-for child, is three times the grant that Kent receives. That is supposed to reflect the very costs in London that the Minister has mentioned. Like a number of London boroughs controlled, probably, by all parties, Islington is placing people in Kent, buying facilities that Kent cannot afford in its own county, and pocketing the change. The money was put there for the council to provide for itself. Let it do that.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman must face up to the paradox that his own speech exposed. First, one could not reasonably pursue a policy whereby spending on social services for the elderly in inner London boroughs should be the same as that in shire areas, though we could argue about the differential. Secondly, it is not reasonable to say that any authority should provide residential care only within its own boundaries. I do not think that I would like to live in a country where that was the case. Local authorities across the political parties should be congratulated on making efficiency savings. If they are getting a cheaper—in the financial sense—service by placing people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it is easy to understand why they should be doing so. If Islington can make financial savings, I would have thought that both my party and the hon. Gentleman's should congratulate the council on that.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells spoke about pressures on home building and complained about the alleged lack of infrastructure as a result of growth. Once again, he cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot complain about pressures on houses while at the same time saying that we need to put up a fortress around the inner London boroughs to protect Kent from the real world. That is not a consistent policy.

Michael Fallon: The Minister is awarding boroughs such as Islington higher costs for looking after its elderly, reflecting the higher costs in the area, but if it chooses to spend a greater amount in sending old people out of those areas, surely that should sooner or later be reflected in the allocation that he makes. The council cannot have it both ways. If it is getting extra money because the area has higher costs and then benefits by sending its elderly out of the borough, is it not unfair on other authorities that are receiving a lower grant?

Phil Woolas: The impression has been given in the debate that that is the only criterion for the allocation of money. I think that I am right in saying that sparsity is another criterion in the allocation, which I would not have thought applied to inner London. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) makes a serious point, which I will take very seriously. The consequence of doing what he recommends would be to punish success. It would be to tell councils that are producing efficiencies and spending council tax payers' money more responsibly that that money should be withdrawn from them.
	Of course, there has to be a balance and I accept that some rural and county areas have genuine extra costs, but I do not accept the picture that has been painted of the south-east in relation to other areas. We need a balance between recognising genuine extra costs—we also have to take historic spend into account in order not to rupture or dysfunction services—and encouraging efficiencies in order to keep the bills of council tax payers down. I am sure that Conservative Members would agree with that. There is a danger of not rewarding authorities that are attempting to keep their bills down.
	I acknowledge that there is a real issue, but let me address the point about infrastructure. Conservative Members have made different specific cases. I think that the hon. Member for North Thanet said that the Deputy Prime Minister was dumping houses on Herne bay, but I think I am right in saying that Herne bay is not in the growth area of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not know the circumstances of local building, but once again, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he wants to provide reasonably priced homes and a future for the people of the area and at the same time blame all the problems on the Labour Government.
	To be fair, the economy of south-east and east Kent—and, indeed, north Kent—was damaged by the closure of the mines in the 1980s, though I am not trying to make a partisan point about that. There is also the knock-on effect of the opening of the channel tunnel. Some Members have said that there has been no infrastructure investment in Kent, but I think that I am right in saying that the largest infrastructure investment in western Europe is located between London and the channel: it is called the channel tunnel link. Ashford International station was chosen as part of a regeneration—

Julian Brazier: By a Conservative Government.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman, who shouts from a sedentary position, is in danger of becoming the Chicken Licken of the Tory party. The channel tunnel link was a Conservative Government initiative, and the policy was that it should be paid for entirely and exclusively with private money. The scheme collapsed, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister negotiated a package to save it. Is the hon. Gentleman denying the Labour Government's crucial intervention to ensure the modernisation of the channel tunnel and the creation of a fast link? He virtually implied earlier that we are not allowed motorways up north. Goodness me! The idea that there are more motorways up north than down south is ridiculous.

Roger Gale: Is it?

Phil Woolas: The policy of this Government is that all areas should share in prosperity. I was asked for an assurance that there is no policy of northern bias by stealth, but that observation is based on the assumption—one could almost say prejudice—that up north we are all poor. The second richest county in the UK is Cheshire, and there are bits of the north and the north-west that are beautiful, just as there are bits of the south and south-east that are poor. In the run-up to the local government settlement, the special interest group of municipal authorities accused us of not giving money to the north and of giving it all to the southern softies. I apologise to SIGOMA; I was paraphrasing. Equally, southern authorities are accusing us of the reverse. However, the formulas are based not on geographical distribution, but on a genuine attempt to achieve fairness that is being made in the context of a rising tide. So I can give the assurance that has been sought on this issue, and if Members look at the figures, they will see that my point is borne out by the position of, say, Lancashire, in relation to other county councils. The Government's policy is based on the view that the differences within regions are as great, if not greater, than they are between regions. The poorest areas in the country are overwhelmingly in London, and some of the richest are in Cheshire and Yorkshire. A very fair point was made about pockets of poverty, and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) relayed his interesting conversation in the Tea Room about where it is better to be poor. I do not want to be drawn into that, because the truth is that there is a balance in this regard. It is more difficult to get a job in a poorer area, but I acknowledge that there are perhaps extra costs associated with living in a pocket of poverty in a richer area.
	I can assure the House that the horribly titled super-output areas—a statistical description of how we measure deprivation—enable us to identify deprivation at a sub-ward level, and to provide a better analysis of the allocation of money. It is fair to point out that it would be wrong to assume that there are no pockets of deprivation in the better-off areas. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) described Sevenoaks as an affluent area, and that that is why it is badly funded. Sevenoaks is a relatively well-off area, but there are no doubt pockets of poverty and deprivation within that. Our policy is to ensure that our funding formula addresses that. On the other side of the coin, I would not like to take the hon. Gentleman to, say, Knowsley and argue that point too strongly. The breadth and depth of deprivation in some towns and cities is significant, and the Government are successfully addressing that as well.
	The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich had said that Sevenoaks was being badly funded because it was affluent. I suspect that my right hon. Friend said that Sevenoaks had received an above-inflation funding increase, like everywhere else, but acknowledged that it was relatively less well-funded than other areas. I hope that I have made my point.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about London weighting and said that pay policy and housing policy differed across sectors. One could say that that is simply a result of the bargaining mechanisms that we have. There is also a policy to try to ensure that more affordable housing is available for key workers. I recognise, however, that London weighting is a problem for areas on the outer ring of London. I would include in the equation the difficulties and differences resulting from the area cost adjustment. Incidentally, those systems were not set up by this Government, but the hon. Gentleman's point is worth careful consideration, and I thank him for it.
	I do not want to go into too much detail on infrastructure. I do not accept the general premise that the Government have not invested in the infrastructure in Kent. On motorways, the other side of the coin would be the accusation from these Benches that Kent got its motorways first. We used to love coming down south and getting on their fast motorways. We waited from 1964 for the completion of the M60 around Greater Manchester. I was delighted to be there when it was opened and delighted that it was my Government who opened it. We did not build that motorway because it was up north; we built it because we wanted to improve the prosperity of the country and make everybody better off.
	I have made the point about Ashford and the rail link. I hope that the House will acknowledge that investment in infrastructure has been substantial. Points have been made about the need for more water, sewerage, schools and so on, but planning policy, as updated by this Government—in PPS6, I think—acknowledges the point about infrastructure.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells made a point about the 1991 population statistics. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the settlement. What I would say is that that is true for everyone, and not all the examples of new developments in south-east England—I have mentioned Herne bay—are the result of the ODPM's growth policy, but we do need to provide houses for people.

Roger Gale: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clarify something on the record because it might help a lot. He has to accept that because of the general presumption that we need lots more houses in the south-east, local authorities are terrified of turning down planning applications on ground of lack of infrastructure. There is a fear that all a developer has to do is go to appeal, and because of the ODPM's attitude, the appeal is bound to be granted, at the local ratepayer's expense. Whether the development is designated by the Deputy Prime Minister is almost immaterial; the effect is the same.

Phil Woolas: I listened to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes as a constituency MP, and take it at face value. I hope that what he describes is not the case: it is certainly not the Government's policy to encourage such a development or such attitudes.
	These matters are more appropriate for my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, but we have talked about them on many occasions, in preparation for this debate and for others. I can assure the House that the Government do not intend to build anywhere and everywhere, including on the green belt. That is not our policy, and no such suggestion is borne out by the facts. However, the hon. Member for North Thanet used the word "fear", and that is something that we should look at.
	Fear has no place in the process, but we must not forget that housing demand is led by changes in lifestyle, greater longevity and other factors. On the whole, it is not governed by population increase. There is therefore a knock-on effect for schools and care homes, and for the problem of old people from Islington being "dumped"—as the hon. Member for North Thanet termed it—in his constituency. We want good-quality care to be provided for all our old people.
	Finally, I want to put on record some of the statistics that I promised earlier. In the past five years, Kent has received an annual average increase in formula grant of 5.4 per cent. In total, it has received an extra £200 million in grant over that period, on a like-for-like basis. That substantial annual increase is above the rate of inflation each year. Over the same period, Kent has increased council tax by an average of 7.4 per cent.
	Moreover, Kent's provision of personal social services for adults this year amounts to some £278 million, up by 6.1 per cent. from last year. The county's allocation per head of population is £278. Cumulative growth in cash terms in the local authority since this Government took office has been 53.9 per cent.
	The figures involved are clearly substantial. This year alone, Kent has received a 7 per cent. increase in total resources for children's social services. As a three-star social service authority, no part of Kent's social services resources is ring fenced, so the county can target those resources at the greatest need. I have listened to the arguments advanced by Opposition Members in this debate, but the background is that resources have been rising across the board.
	I could give similar statistics for all the district authorities in the Kent area, but I shall concentrate on Tunbridge Wells, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells chose the topic for this Adjournment debate. In the past six years, there have been increases of 4.1, 4.3, 3.6, 3.7, 2.6 and 3.7 per cent, respectively. Those increases do not amount to a fortune, but they are above inflation.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells made some important points on his constituents' behalf that merit due consideration in discussions about the formula review. Representations have been made by Kent county council and the district councils in the area. They are being given due consideration and, as I said earlier, Kent county council is part of one of the working parties looking at how the formula works.
	However, like the rest of the public sector, local authorities must constantly look for things that they can do differently to keep costs down. Opposition Members want to debate ways in which the central tax payer should pay more and more. They have come to accept that this Government's economic policy is so successful that there is more money, although I am sure that any proposal for tax increases by central Government would cause them to call more Adjournment debates on Thursday evenings, when once again they would pursue the Chicken Licken strategy.
	Once more, I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, and congratulate him on securing this debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.